
iloi, cCmfi. $C*/o /l£c^ 7 (n^ 

rt.CL. I 



LaAj 






Book_ T H- ^S 



RUM ON THE RUN 
IN TEXAS 

A Brief History of Prohibition in the 
Lone Star State 

By H. A. IVY, A. M. 



With Introduction by 
REV. GEORGE C. RANKIN, D. D. 

(ILLUSTRATED) 



DEDICATION: 

To the Christian Ministers of Texas, in recognition of their valiant 
services in the Pending War on the Liquor Traffic— the 
Arch Enemy of Righteousness in Texas— 
this Modest Volume is Affection- 
ately Dedicated by 
THE AUTHOR 



COPYRIGHT, 1919, BY H. A. IVY 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



3 0^0 




RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



Preface 

The conscience and intelligence of all Christendom is up in 
arms against the beverage liquor traffic. The modern liquor 
saloon is utterly incompatible with Christian civilization and na- 
tive Americans are rapidly getting their eyes open to the fact 
that it is a choice between liquor and civil liberty. If liberty 
is to survive, the saloon must die. 

Texas is but a small segment of the battle field in the world 
war upon the drink curse, but victory here is of such impor- 
tance to the general fight, that when Texas shall banish the 
drunkard factories from her borders, doubtless a shout of triumph 
will ring round the earth that will be echoed back from the 
skies. 

Our forefathers rebelled against the tyranny of King George, 
because he quartered large bodies of troops upon them in times 
of peace at needless expense. For more than half a century 
King Alcohol has quartered upon the people of Texas a vast 
army of alcoholic poison dispensers in times of peace at the 
useless cost of millions annually of treasure and of untold and 
untenable sorrow and humiliation to the inmates of Texas 
homes, until the better class of our citizenship are up in arms 
in open revolt, determined to expel this home-despoiling tyrant 
from Texas. 

Of course there are Tories, as in Washington's Day, who rally 
around the standard of the old Tyrant and want his ruinous rule 
to continue, and of course we may expect a few Benedict Arnolds 
in our own ranks, and true it is we met a Brandywine of defeat 
before Legislative Hill in 1909, but our Valley Forge is behind, 
and our Yorktown is ahead, and as sure as God reigns, righteous- 
ness will prevail in the end, and Old King Alcohol with his crime- 
inciting legions of belegged barrels and kegs and demijohns 
and bottles will disembark for other shores, as dimly fore- 
shadowed in our frontispiece. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



In this connection the author gratefully acknowledges the 
assistance of Rev. Arthur W. Jones, Mrs. Harry Haynes, Miss 
Fanny L. Armstrong, Dr. J. B. Cranfill, Judge V. W. Grubbs, 
Dr. G. C. Rankin and Col. E. L. Dohoney, and many others to a 
less extent in the preparation of the data for this sketch of 
the great reform in Texas. 

In the hope that it may be of service in promoting the pending 
war for the expulsion of the drink tyrant from his native Texas, 
this little volume is prayerfully sent forth by THE AUTHOR. 



IVY'S TEXAS GOING DRY 



n the Sheaves. Adapted by M A. 

ng in the morning, sowing seeds of Temp'rance. ' 
ng at the noon and 'neath tne evening sky 
ing for the harvest and the time of voting, 
fill be rejoicing — Texas will be dry .. 

Texas going dry. Texas going dry, 
, Pass along the watch-word, Texas going dry, 
3 Texas gcing dry. Texas going dry, V 

Pass the word along, friends Texas will be dry.) 




Sowing in the 6unshine, sowing in the shadows, 
Fearing neither bluffs nor Rummy's threat'ning eye 
Bv and by the harvest and the voting over. 
There will be rejoicing, Texas will be dry — Choi 



Come, now. all ye patriots help free our noble Texas. 
Raise a stainless banner, lifting it on high, 
When the war is over, and we have won the victory, 
There will be rejoicing, Texas will be DRY —Chorus 

SECOND CHORUS 
We'll make the map alTwhite. -we'll make the 
In the int'rest cf our hearthstones, we'll make the 
We'll "knock the blark all out." and make the 
in the int'rest of clean government, we'U make the 



explanation: 

Cos. 
White, all dry 163 
Black, all wet 22 
Gray, part wet 60 

Total, - 245 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 




REV. G. C. RANKIN, D. D. 
"On With The Battle" 



Introduction 

I have read with profit and with pleasure several chapters of 
this little volume and I am sure that it is a valuable contribu- 
tion to the prohibition literature of the State. In fact it meets 
a long-felt want. 

For years we have been gathering facts and figures and argu- 
ments on this subject, and these we have used with wonderful t 
effect in our local option contests. "We have put these into the 
form of addresses, newspaper articles, and in tracts, but for some 
reason we have not gathered and given them permanent record 
in book form. Professor Ivy undertakes this task in this book- 
let, and right well has he accomplished his object. The sub- 
ject is an immense one, dating back a great many years, but he 
has begun at the beginning, shown the origin of the temperance 
movement, traced its progress succinctly through the years of its 
growth and development down to the present time, and he pre- 
sents the results as they exist with marked accuracy and ability. 
His style is easy and graceful, his thought clear, and his facts 
well arranged. Really, he gives to us a hand-book on prohibition. 

The distribution of this book will greatly help the work. It 
will place in the hands of the people a statement of the case 
that will arm them for the war. I hope for its widest circulation 
as an efficient aid to our great cause. It has a mission in the 
work to be accomplished, and we give to it our heartiest indorse- 
ment and unreserved good wishes. 

G. C. RANKIN. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 




TEXAS PROHIBITION PIONEERS 
1, Harry Haynes (dead); 2, E. L. Dohoney; 3, Doctor James Younge (dead); 4, Judge 
V. W. Grubbs; 5, Capt O. T. Plummer; 6, Rev. William Carey Crane, D. D. (dead) , 
7, Rev. J. F. Johnson (dead); 8, Rev. Rufus C. Burleson, D. D. (dead). 



A Brief History of Prohibition in Texas 

CHAPTER I. 

TEMPERANCE SENTIMENT THE FOUNDATION OF PROHI- 
BITION LAW. 

Sentiment Rules the World. — Municipal law is only public sen- 
timent crystallized into statutory "thou-shalt-nots" for the wel- 
fare of society. So prohibitory legislation for the protection 
of society from the evil effects of the drink traffic, is the natu- 
ral offspring of temperance sentiment. Hence a history of pro- 
hibition should begin with at least a hasty glance backward at 
the development of temperance sentiment, which was finally 
crystallized into prohibitory law, and upon the strength of which 
the effectiveness of the law must depend. For let it be remem- 
bered that a law which is not strongly buttressed in healthy pub- 
lic sentiment will hardly, in this government of the people by 
the people, withstand the assaults of the selfish interests that 
will be marshalled for its overthrow. 

Temperance Reform Born in America. — The temperance senti- 
ment which in Texas is the foundation for the prohibition of the 
liquor traffic was an importation originally from the older Ameri- 
can States, and hence it is proper to notice briefly the genesis 
and growth of the temperance reform in America. Dr. Theo- 
dore Cuyler says: "America is the birthplace of the modern 
temperance reform. In Great Britain there were a few sporadic 
movements early in this century, but on our American soil the 
first temperance society of modern times was organized." The 
first temperance, or "temperate," reformers did not aim at total 
abstinence. They merely obligated themselves "not to drink 
more than was good for them," and not to furnish liquors to 
others on ordinary occasions, reserving the liberty of dispensing 
liquors at public functions. 

The First Temperance Society of which any authentic record 
appears was organized in Litchfield County, Connecticut, in 1789. 
More than two hundred Litchfield farmers united in a society 
to "discourage the use of spirituous liquors." They determined 
*aot to furnish distilled liquors to their farm hands. No ban 
was placed upon milder beverages. The farmers are still the 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



backbone of the temperance reform in every land. This with- 
holding from farm hands of their " 'leven o'clock bitters" was, 
in that day, denounced as an "infringement of inalienable rights, " 
and these mild temperance reformers were jeered at as "fanatics 
and stingy hypocrites" who wanted to cheat their honest laborers 
out of the value of the grog. 

In 1797 the Methodist Episcopal Church in Virginia resolved: 
"That we, the members of this Conference, do pledge our honor, 
as well as our word as Christians, not only to abandon the use 
of ardent spirits ourselves, except as a medicine, but also to use 
our influence to induce others to do the same." Similar resolu- 
tions were passed by the Presbyterian Synod of Pennsylvania, 
and also enjoining ministers to preach against the sin of in- 
temperance. 

First Personal Abstinence Society. — April 13, 1808, in Sara- 
toga County, New York, Dr. Billy J. Clark and Rev. Lebbeus Arm- 
strong organized a temperance society, which is frequently re- 
ferred to as the beginning of the temperance reform in America. 
The date of its organization was observed in 1908 as the first 
centennial of the temperance reform. The prevailing sentiment 
of that day is indicated by the following extracts from its con- 
stitution : 

"Article IV, Section 1. No member shall drink rum, gin, 
whiskey, wine or any distilled spirits or composition of the 
same, or any of them, except by advice of -a physician, or in 
case of actual disease (also except at public dinners), under the 
penalty of twenty-five cents, provided that this article shall not 
infringe on any religious rite. 

"Sec. 2. No member shall be intoxicated under penalty of 
fifty cents. 

"Sec. 3. No member shall offer any of the above liquors to 
any person to drink thereof under penalty of twenty-five cents 
for each offense." 

A Century's Progress. — The exception in favor of drinking 
at "public dinners" is an index to the prevailing custom of pro- 
fuse drinking at funerals, pastoral installations, weddings, 
church dedications, etc., where frequently, not only church mem- 
bers, but clergymen as well, were sometimes sadly under the 
influence of liquor. It was supposed that ministers could pray 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 9 

and preach better by using a little strong drink. The repu- 
tation of the town that entertained a religious gathering in that 
day for good fellowship and hospitality was gauged by the quan- 
tity and quality of rum, gin, brandy and wine provided for the 
entertainment of the visiting brethren. And that was only one 
hundred years ago. A total abstainer from alcoholic drink was 
scarcely to be found. Verily we have made progress during 
the past century. 

This marvelous development of anti-liquor sentiment is ac- 
curately registered by resolutions of the General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Cburch. In 1812 that Conference voted 
down a resolution that declared: 

"No local or stationed preacher shall retail spirituous or malt 
liquors without forfeiting his ministerial character among us." 

In 1816 this Conference adopted the same resolution, with 
the word "malt" left out, thus preserving to Methodist preachers 
their "personal liberty" to sell beer. But in 1892 that same 
Conference had so grown in grace that it declared: 

"The only proper attitude of a Christian toward the liquor 4 
traffic is that of relentless hostility. It can not be licensed with- 
out sin." And all Christendom was making similar progress. 

But let it not be supposed that champions of sobriety were 
entirely wanting in colonial times. Heroic efforts were being 
made even then by a few choice spirits to check the ravages 
of the drink demon upon society. Distilled liquor was first made 
in Boston from West India molasses in 1700, and four years 
later it commenced to be made from grain. And yet, in Feb. 
27, 1777, the Continental Congress, sitting in Philadelphia, re- 
solved: 

"That it be recommended to the several Legislatures in the 
United States immediately to pass laws the most effectual for 
putting an immediate stop to the pernicious practice of distilling 
grain, by which the most extensive evils are likely to be de- 
rived if not quickly prevented." 

According to Bancroft, the Constitution of Virginia in 1676, 
provided: 

"The sale of wines and ardent spirits is absolutely prohibited 
(if not in Jamestown, yet otherwise) throughout the whole 
country." 



10 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

The first law enacted in Georgia, by the colonists, prohibit* 
slavery, and the second, prohibited the importation of liqu( 
Yet the greed-inspired rum sellers and slave traders prev ;i« 
upon the King to annul these laws and Georgia became bott^ 
slave and liquor State. In 1865, President Lincoln, by proclan 
tion, freed the Georgia blacks from physical bondage, anr 
1908 the Legislature of Georgia freed both the whites an q 
from rum tyranny and restored the State to its original high 
plane of civic righteousness. 

Thus these few heroic spirits among the foundation builders 
of the new Republic, were overwhelmed by the mercenary spirit 
of the age and they failed in their efforts to make this "land 
of the free" as free from the tyranny of "King Alcohol" as from 
the tyranny of King George. 

For years the promoters of sobriety worked along the line of 
moderation — obligating their members "not to drink more than 
was good for them." The plan was a failure, because based on 
a fundamental error in assuming that any liquor at all was 
"good" for a person. 

First Total Abstinence (Limited). — A substantial advance was 
made in 1826 by the organization in Boston of the American 
Temperance Society pledged to "Total Abstinence from Ardent 
Spirits." This was a distinct advance, though still short of the 
mark. Public-dinner drunkenness was as much under ban as ordi- 
nary drunkenness. The society raised money and sent out a mis- 
sionary to lecture and organize branch societies. At the end 
of the first year a total of 222 societies had been organized and 
30,000 signers secured to the "total-abstinence-from-spirituous- 
liquor" pledges. Many distilleries, it is said, had to close. 

The first distinctively temperance newspaper, "The National 
Philanthropist," appeared in Boston in 1828, edited by Rev. Wil- 
liam Collier. 

In 1832, General Lewis Cass, then United States Secretary of 
War, issued an order "forbidding the introduction of ardent 
spirits into any fort, camp or garrison in the United States, and 
prohibiting their sale by any sutler to the troops." 

Advance to Complete Total Abstinence. — At the beginning of 
the year 1833 it was estimated that "there were more than 5,000 
temperance societies in the United States with a membership of 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 11 



a million and a quarter, of whom ten thousand had been drunk- 
1 ards. Four thousand distilleries had been closed, six thousand 
,. merchants had given up the sale of ardent spirits and their use 
t 1 liad been abandoned upon over four thousand vessels." But 
e there was a serious defect in the method. All this work was 
Y predicated upon abstinence from distilled liquors only. Multi- 
i ^es relapsed back into drunkenness through the use of milder 

drinks, and temperance leaders were driven to make a further 
advance and to demand "total abstinence from all alcoholic bev- 
erages," and accordingly the American Temperance Union was 
organized in 1833 on a strict total abstinence basis. 

It is interesting to note that the "drink-no-more-than-is-good" 
platform on which the temperance reformers stood a hundred 
years ago is occupied by the rummies of today in their final 
fight against extinction, and the position later occupied by the 
temperance hosts up to 1835, demanding total abstinence from 
distilled liquors is the one upon which the brewery cohorts of 
America are now marshalled, while the temperance reformers 
have moved to higher ground, and in the name of humanity 
and righteousness are demanding the extermination of the bev- 
erage liquor traffic root and branch. 

Temperance Sentiment Transplanted to Texas. — With this 
hasty survey of the development of temperance sentiment in the 
United States up to the time the American colonists immigrated 
to Texas in such large numbers as to become at once the ruling 
element in the State, over which the Mexican flag then floated, 
we are prepared to understand that these ideas of temperance 
entertained by the American colonists were transplanted to 
Texas and gave color to the early legislation regarding the liquor 
traffic. It is natural that this sentiment should weaken some- 
what under the pioneer surroundings and not manifest itself 
very strongly until material conditions were sufficiently settled 
to incline the pioneer settlers to look after the higher problems 
of social welfare. 

Texas' First Liquor Law. — So it is not surprising that Texas' 
first liquor law, enacted in 1837 by the Congress of the Re- 
public, was merely a revenue measure, levying a tax upon the 
"wet goods" merchant the same as on the dry goods merchant 



12 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

to defray the expense of the government, without any effort to 
mitigate the evil effects of the traffic by regulation. 

Texas' First Regulation Law. — Three years later, however 
(1840), this transplanted American temperance sentiment began 
to assert itself sufficiently to secure the enactment of a regula- 
tion statute by the Congress of the Republic of Texas imposing 
an occupation tax of $250 on the liquor seller, and placing him 
under bond of $2500 to "constantly keep an orderly and reputable 
house and to prevent gambling, quarreling or other misconduct." 
The conditions of the liquor dealer's bond show that even thus 
early the drinking saloon, then usually styled a groggery, was 
recognized as the rendezvous of the gambler, and the incubator 
of quarrels and misconduct generally. Gradually the saloon 
came to be recognized as the promoter of a long train of evils, 
which the law-makers, in response to the temperance sentiment 
of the times, tried to protect society from by adding other condi- 
tions to the liquor dealer's bond. For instance, it was noticed 
that the youth of the State were being debauched by the 
"groggeries" and the saloonist was bonded not to sell to minors. 
In like manner he was bonded not to adulterate his liquors, not 
to permit lewd women, not to screen his bar, etc., until now 
there are twelve conditions in the Texas liquor dealer's bond, 
the violation of any one of which subjects him to a fine of $500 
for each offense until his whole bond of $5000 is exhausted, 
when he will have to make a new bond or quit business. 

Texas' Present Drastic Regulation. — The liquor dealer's license 
under the present law costs him $750 a year, his bond is $5000, 
and the penalty for violating the law is drastic in the extreme, 
involving forfeiture of license. The gradual enlargement of the 
liquor dealer's license fee from $250 to $750 a year, and the 
increase of his bond from $2500 to $5000, and the increase in 
the severity of the penalties for violating the law are sure in- 
dexes of the growth of temperance sentiment among the people 
of Texas. At the present time the Texas liquor dealer is in the 
predicament of the fellow who was said to be "twixt the devil 
and the deep sea." It is really doubtful whether a Texas liquor 
seller can honestly obey all the restrictions of the law and of 
his bond and stay in business; while he stands in constant dan- 
ger of being put out of business if he violates the law, through 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 13 

forfeiture of his license. Then to increase the sorrows of Satan's 
chief actor in the tragedy of "Human Damnation," he is threat- 
ened with complete overthrow by Statewide prohibition. 

The wonder is that more liquor sellers do not voluntarily quit 
and embark in some other vocation, upon which the conscience 
and intelligence of Christendom is not waging a truceless war. 

Since writing the foregoing I have read more closely the Rob- 
ertson-Fitzhugh liquor law that promised to work such wonders 
in the way of reforming the saloon, and it is my deliberate con- 
viction that it is the most stupendous fake that ever disgraced 
the criminal code of Texas. It is fearfully and wonderfully 
built to protect the saloon. In nearly every provision there is a 
"joker" that provides a way of escape for the liquor outlaw from 
the "drastic penalties." 

Temperance Sentiment-Builders. — A number of different 
agencies have contributed to the development of the regnant 
temperance sentiment which has wrested seven-eighths of the 
geographical area of the State from rum domination; but first 
and chief among these are the evangelical Christian churches 
with their Sunday schools. Some one has aptly said that "every 
time a new boy enters a Protestant Sunday school, the wave 
of temperance sentiment rises a little higher." The churches 
have been more or less active in this sentiment-building from 
the beginning of the American colonization in Texas. 

Temperance Journalism. — The religious press has contributed 
much to the progress of the temperance reform in Texas, while 
in the last three decades an increasing number of country 
weeklies have become important allies. Texas is a veritable 
graveyard of temperance papers, which have been so short- 
-lived as to raise the question as to whether a purely temper- 
ance paper can expect a living support in the State. The White 
Ribbon, organ of the Texas W. C. T. U., now twenty-four years 
old, is the only strictly temperance* publication that has weath- 
ered the storm and lived to a voting age, and one wonders if 
its longevity is not due to the fact that its sponsors do not 
know how to fail. This paper, woman-like, has evinced a dis- 
position to change its name, having been called the Bulletio 
Board and then the Cross Aider, in its youth. 



14 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

Among the lamented journalistic champions of temperance 
that have left "footprints on Texas sands," but which followed 
each other in rapid succession to the grave are: 

The Temperance Family Visitor, started in Houston in 1870, 
by B. T. Kavanaugh. 

Texas Signet, Lee Newton, Dallas, 1873. 

Southern Temperance Watchman, W. A. Lesueur, Honey 
Grove, 1875. 

Temperance Vedette, Vic Reinhardt, Terrell, 1876. 

Texas Prohibitionist, George W. Baines, McKinney, 1881. 

Temperance Banner, J. L. Lemons, Caldwell, 1884. 

Advance, J. B. Cranfill, Gatesville, 1882; moved to Waco, 1886. 

Prohibition Advocate, D. P. Haggard, Dallas, 1886. 

The Temperance Flag, W. H. Munnerlyn, Granbury, 1886. 

Texas Patriot, R. E. Grabel, Dallas, 1902. 

The Lance, Granville Jones, Mineral Wells, 1905. 

The Advance, P. F. Paige, Dallas, 1903. 

The Texas Battle, W. D. Upshaw, 1908. 

The Texas Round-Up, B. F. Riley, 1908. 

Leaving at this time the Home and State, the medium of 
the Texas Anti-Saloon League (though not exclusively a temper- 
ance publication), and the White Ribbon, organ of the W. C. 
T. U. of Texas. The sad fate of earlier temperance papers 
should admonish the friends of civic righteousness of the neces- 
sity for a more liberal patronage of papers consecrated to the 
cause. 

Along in the fifties, temperance societies began to be or- 
ganized. Among these were: The Friends of Temperance, the 
Good Templars and others. See Chapter III. 

Later in the field, in 1882, was the Woman's Christian Tem- 
perance Union, in a sense a child of the church, with its scien- 
tific temperance instruction in public schools, its lecturers and 
ether departments of educational effort. See Chapter VI. 

Later still the Prohibition party, in 1886, the Texas Local 
Option Association, 1903, and the Anti-Saloon League of Texas, 
1907. See Chapters VII., VIII. and IX. 

And last but not least, the liquor dealers themselves by their 
flagrant disregard of law, and their efforts to dominate politics, 
have contributed in a large measure to the growth of sentiment 
against their business. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 15 



CHAPTER II. 

ORIGIN AND EARLY PROGRESS OF PROHIBITORY 
LEGISLATION. 

Prohibition of Divine Origin. — The prohibition principle was 
first announced by Jehovah himself in the Garden of Eden and 
reaffirmed at Sinai. Human law-givers have readily followed 
the Divine lead in prohibiting other things inherently hurtful 
to humankind, but they have been slow to apply the prohibition 
principle to the beverage liquor traffic. 

First Prohibition Law. — The idea of prohibiting by law the 
traffic in intoxicants, seems to have originated with General 
James Appleton, who a*s a member of the Maine Legislature 
in 1837, introduced and secured a favorable committee report 
on a prohibitory bill, which, however, failed of passage. 

In 1839 Neal Dow, then a young lawyer, appeared as an 
enthusiastic champion of the prohibition principle, speaking in 
its behalf throughout the .State of Maine. By the year 184G 
the sentiment had become so strong in the Pine Tree State that 
the Legislature was elected on that issue, and a prohibitory 
statute was enacted which is said to have been the first in any 
Christian State. This law proved ineffective, however, by reason 
of its light penalty, until it was strengthened by the addition 
of a severer penalty and a search and seizure provision. In 1884, 
by vote of the people, prohibition was engrafted into the Con- 
stitution of Maine, where it has since remained. 

Temperance Reform Checked by War. — The period from 1844 
to 1856 "was remarkable for temperance agitation throughout 
the Nation. During these years every Northern State from the 
Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains, except New Jersey, enacted 
some form of no-license legislation. During that period two 
moral reforms — the Temperance Reform and the Slavery Abo- 
lition Movement — were running "neck and neck," and there is 
little doubt that the liquor traffic in America would have died 
decades ago but for the war which focalized public attention on 
the slavery question, and obscured, for the time, the liquor 



16 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

abomination, and left a war debt for which the government had 
desperate need of the liquor revenue. 

During the war most of the temperance reformers of the 
Northern States went to the front to "save the Union" and ac- 
complish the abolition of African slavery, for almost without 
exception those favoring the abolition of slavery also favored 
the abolition of the liquor traffic. Many of them never came 
back from the war, and during the absence of others, the liquor 
people "repaired their fences" and regained most of the terri- 
tory they had lost just preceding the war. When the war 
was over, every State that had adopted prohibition in any form, 
excepting Maine, had relapsed, and the war left society through- 
out the Nation so demoralized that the temperance reform is 
now, after half a century, just getting back to the point it had 
reached before the war. However, with this difference, that 
now it is the Southern section of the Nation that is abolishing 
the iniquitous traffic. It looks now as if nothing short of war 
to again divert public energy away from the liquor traffic, can 
save this "sum of all villainies" from extermination at the hands 
of an outraged citizenship within the next decade. And the dan- 
ger is that occasion may arise that will enable the conscience- 
less liquor power to so inflame the jingoism of the country as to 
plunge the Nation into war and thereby again save the neck 
of the criminal saloon from the hangman's noose. 

Texas' First Liquor Election, 1854. — The wave of temperance 
sentiment that swept over the Nation in the early fifties reached 
Texas. Its most striking manifestation here was the enact- 
ment of a species of dram-shop local option law by the Legis- 
lature of 1854, which, by its terms, sought to close all dram 
shops selling in less quantities than a quart on August 8, 1854, 
except in counties where a majority of the people in an election 
held on the day preceding (August 7), had voted "for license." 
This law it seems failed entirely of its purpose. A test case 
(State vs. Swisher, 17 Tex., 441) was carried up from Hays 
County which attacked the constitutionality of the law. Pend- 
ing the final determination of. this case, naturally the law was 
not enforced, and it was repealed in 1856, before the final de- 
cision of the case declaring the law unconstitutional. The 
hasty repeal of this law suggests that its author had outrun 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



17 



public sentiment in his zeal for temperance reform, or else the 
liquor power made itself felt in the election of the Legislature of 
1856. That the latter was likely among the principal reasons 
for the precipitate repeal of this law, is suggested by the Leg- 
islative race that year in Grayson County, which was probably 
duplicated in many other counties. There were two candidates, 
and one of them announced as his chief slogan "more whiskey 
and better whiskey." He was triumphantly elected over a capa- 
ble and popular opponent. 

' This law, however, though barren of direct fruit, has a his- 
torical value. Under it, Governor E. M. Pease ordered elections 
held in all counties of the State to determine whether dram 
shops selling less than a quart should be licensed. Following 
is a list of the counties that reported the result of this elec- 
tion to the Secretary of State, together with the vote "for" and 
"against" license. It is likely that many other counties held 
this election but failed to report results to the State authorities, 
as the Governor's proclamation ordering the election, did not 
direct such report to be made, nor did the act itself require it. 

Let it be remembered that a majority "against license" in 
a county in this election meant no more than that the people 
wanted the tippling houses closed, without affecting liquor con- 
cerns selling quarts and more, while a vote "for license" meant 
wet from a drink up. It will prove interesting to compare the 
vote by counties in this 1854 election with the local option 
map on page 4, which correctly reflects the present status of 
each county as to prohibition. 



VOTE BY COUNTIES IN TEXAS' FIRST LOCAL OPTION 
ELECTION, HELD AUGUST 7, 1854. 



Counties- 



Against 
License. License 



Austin 257 

Bosque 14 

Brazoria .... 303 

Brazos 10 

Cherokee ...1059 

Fannin 129 

Fort Bend . . 210 

Galevston ... 222 

Gonzales 372 

Goliad 127 



or 




Against 


For 


ise. 


Counties — 


License. 


License. 


126 


Grayson . . 


. 179 


1S3 


. . . 


Guadalupe 


. 187 


171 


36 


Harrison . . 


. 615 


316 


49 


Henderson 


. 122 


117 


347 


Hopkins . . 


. 379 


91 


135 


Kaufman . 


. 150 


67 


59 


Lamar .... 


. 471 
. 150 

. 57 


181 


60 


Leon 


85 


130 


Liberty . . . 


23 


57 


Limestone . 


. 175 


64' 



18 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

Against For Against For 

Counties — License License Counties — License License 

McLennan ... 120 96 S'n Augustine 257 36 

Madison 95 32 Shelby 316 149 

Marion 4 77 Titus 318 216 

Milam 154 58 Travis 570 212 

Matagorda .. 107 26 Tyler 112 148 

Newton 64 125 Van Zandt ..95 54 

Nueces 202 127 Waller 254 133 

Orange 97 20 Wharton 78 

Panola 142 ... Williamson .. 174 74 

Red River .. 331 218 Wood 90 136 

Robertson . . 941 551 

School-House Prohibition Laws. — Texans early conceived the 
idea that the liquor saloon was an inveterate enemy to the home 
and the school. The law of 1854, making it possible to abolish 
the dram-shops selling less than a quart by a county vote being 
declared unconstitutional, the people in certain communities 
turned to the State Legislature for local prohibition statutes to 
relieve educational institutions from the demoralizing influences 
emanating from the dram-shops. In the twenty-one years from 
1854 to 1875 about one hundred and fifty communities in the 
State secured the enactment of such local prohibition laws, the 
pioneer villages of Dallas and Fort Worth being among the 
number. The first of- these laws established prohibition for 
five miles around the court house at Marshall. As a sample I 
give here the last one: 

White's School-House Prohibition Law: 

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of 
Texas that it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to 
dispose of any intoxicating or spiritous liquors, by sale or other- 
wise, within four miles of White's mill and school house, in Hill 
County, and Concord school house, in Anderson County. 

Sec. 2. That any person or persons violating the provisions 
of this act shall, upon conviction thereof in any court of com- 
petent jurisdiction, be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars, 
nor more than one hundred dollars, for each and every offense. 

Sec. 3. That this act shall take effect and be in force from 
and after the first day of May, 1875. 

Approved March 15, 1875. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 19 

CHAPTER III. 
THE UNITED FRIENDS OF TEMPERANCE. 

The United Friends of Temperance seem to have been the 
first to establish a State-wide organization in behalf of tem- 
perance in Texas. Dr. James Younge visited Texas in 1854, and 
spent nine months lecturing throughout the settled parts of the 
State. In 1869, he removed to Texas and for eighteen years 
was the most conspicuous leader of the Texas temperance forces. 

Dr. James Younge, Foundation Builder. — "It was his 'white 
plume* at the head of the column that stimulated our purpose, 
nerved our hearts, strengthened our resolve, and intensified our 
love/' said Harry Haynes, Dr. Younge's co-laborer. 

Dr. B. T. Kavanaugh, first State president of the order, said: 
"For the prosperity of our order in this State, we are under ob- 
ligations to our worthy State agent, Dr. Younge. Indeed his ef- 
ficient labors have given it existence." 

Dr. Younge organized in the State 1500 Temperance Councils 
and 800 Bands of Hope, the juvenile societies of the order. In 
1887, 184 local councils, with an aggregate membership of 16,560 
reported to the State Council. 

State Council Organized. — The Grand Council for the State 
was organized at Waco July 4, 1870. Its first president (later 
called grand primate), was Rev. B. T. Kavanaugh, and among 
the organizers and first officers were Dr. R. C. Burleson, presi- 
dent of Waco University, and Dr. William Carey Crane, presi- 
dent of Baylor University, Independence. 

The Friends of Temperance was a secret fraternity. Its mem- 
bers were pledged to total abstinence and fraternal helpfulness 
toward each other and toward drink-cursed humanity. It labored 
to reclaim inebriates, to fortify the young against the drink 
curse, and to cultivate public sentiment against the drink traffic. 
In its juvenile societies called "Bands of Hope," boys and girls 
were pledged to abstinence from the use of liquor, tobacco and 
profanity. Ladies were freely admitted to active membership. 



20 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

Early Temperance Talk in Texas. — A few expressions by 
the leading spirits of the order will be of interest as showing the 
rapid advancement from the tamest moral suasion temperance 
work in the sixties, to the most aggressive prohibition agita- 
tion in the eighties. Dr. William Carey Crane, reporting on 
the "state of the order" to the Grand Council, in 1871, said: 

"Less 11' an two years ago there was not a council of tem- 
perance in this great State. Now there are nearly two hundred 
councils in existence. Then other organizations exerted some 
influence in special localities, and even now are doing good, but 
at this time, the order of the Friends of Temperance is a moral 
power in every quarter of the State. Many youth have been 
drawn from the borders of the grave by the good hand of a 
Friend of Temperance." 

In his address to the Grand Council at Waco, 1878, Grand 
Primate George B. Anderson said. 

"Nine years ago the influence of temperance and the claims 
of temperance upon society were merely nominal. Members of 
the church even, had no scruples about keeping all kinds of 
liquors on their sideboards and urging visitors and friends to 
partake of them. 

"The candidate who could make the greatest number of his 
admirers drunk and furnish the greatest quantity of free whiskey, 
was the man of success. He it was whom they delighted to 
honor; whom they desired to make their laws and mold their 
government for them, and to him were we indebted for the con- 
tinued opposition in our legislative halls to any and all legisla- 
tion on the subject of prohibition and temperance. Then it 
was that alcohol reigned almost supreme, unchecked by law, 
and beyond the control of those who opposed lawlessness and 
crime. Then it was that the whiskey rings ruled the majority 
and that rule was felt by church and State." 

First Effort for Submission, 1881. — Rev. George W. Baines, 
grand primate, in his annual address, 1881, said: 

"Soon after the Waxahachie meeting, July, 1880, when the 
undersigned was elected to his present position in the Grand 
Council, the determination was fixed in his mind to try at the 
very earliest possible moment, to get a constitutional amend- 
ment, prohibiting the sale, etc., of liquors in our State submitted 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 21 

to the suffrage of the people. After weeks of exhaustive labor 
and great anxiety, the prohibition bill amending the constitu- 
tion, stranded in the House, after having passed the Senate. 
Why do you ask? From the lack of nothing on our part, but 
from the abundance of money on the other side. If we had their 
money we could not have used it as they did. The cause of 
prohibition today owes more to the U. F. T. than to every 
other influence in the State, and James Younge and Harry 
Haynes as grand lecturers have done more for this glorious 
work than any other ten men in Texas. Honor to whom honor is 
due. Never let it be forgotten that our order has been fore- 
most in this movement from the start, and let her not be robbed 
of her rightful honors. And here let it be recorded that ac- 
cording to our constitution and ritual, no man who is not a 
prohibitionist can really be a friend of temperance." 

Two-fold Aim of the U. F. T. — Harry Haynes, grand scribe, 
in 1887 said: 

"The result sought to be accomplished was total personal 
abstinence on our part and all over whom we could exert our in- 
fluence, and total prohibition of the liquor traffic on the part 
of the State. The first we have in a very large measure accom- 
plished. The second object, total prohibition by the State, we 
confidently believe will be realized on the 4th of August. 

"No movement has been made in this State during the past 
eighteen years in which our blessed order has not led the forces, 
and without boasting in the least degree of arrogance she can 
claim to be the mother of the present wide-spread and absorb- 
ing interest in the great cause of prohibition." 

Strengthening the Law. — In 1886, by suggestion of Capt. O. T. 
Plummer, the Grand Council appointed Harry Haynes to me- 
morialize the Legislature for needed amendments to the local 
option law, and with the assistance of Judge Simkins, a member 
of the Legislature of 1887, he secured amendments that so 
strengthened the law as to make the effort to secure its adop- 
tion and enforcement worth while, and thus laid the foundation 
for subsequent popularity of local prohibition. At that time 
only three counties — Jasper, Jones and Rockwall — were under 
local option, but a few years thereafter it began to spread over 



22 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

North, East and West Texas like wild-fire, and to catch in spots 
further south in the State. 

The Order Subsides. — The United Friends of Temperance did 
its effective work during the eighteen years preceding the State 
prohibition election of 1887. Curiously enough the organization 
seems to have received its death blow in that memorable con- 
flict. While the Grand Council held several annual meetings 
thereafter, few local lodges reported and interest was at a low 
ebb. After the excitement of that campaign, but few of the 
anti-liquor warriors from the firing line were ever content to re- 
turn to the tame task of pledging a few drunkards to abstain 
from drink. The more exciting work of closing the drunkard 
factories and preventing the making of more drunkards, by pre- 
cinct and county local option campaigns proved more inviting. 
Having failed to free the whole State from rum rule by a single 
campaign in 1887, like good soldiers, they proceeded to "divide 
and conquer" it by piece-meal, as related in chapter 4 of this 
volume. Let it ever be remembered that the quiet moral suasion 
temperance work of the Friends of Temperance and their grand 
lecturer, Dr. James Younge, and his eloquent co-laborer, Harry 
Haynes, helped greatly to recruit the army of civic righteousness 
that under other leadership is destined to drive King Alcohol 
from Texas soil. 

Chief Officers of Grand Council. — During the twenty-three 
years of its existence the following served as grand primate, 
or president: 

Rev. B. T. Kavanaugh, 1870-1871. 

Rev. W. C. Crane, 1871-1874. 

Rev. R. H. Belvin, 1874-1875. 

Rev. F. M. Law, 1875-1876. 

Prof. W. H. Scales, 1876-1877. 

Rev. George B. Anderson, 1877-1879. 

W. D. Jackson, 1879-1880. 

Rev. G. W. Baines, 1880-1881. 

C. R. Gibson, 1881-1883. 

Rev. J. L. Lemons, 1883-1884. 

W. D. Paden, 1884-1885. 

J. J. Swann, 1885-1886. 

W. A. Calfee, 1886-1888. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 23 

W. M. McKnight, 1888—. 

The following were grand scribes, or secretaries, of the order: 

James E. Foster, 1870-1872. 

John H. Tellier, 1872-1875. 

W. H. Coleman, 1875-1877. 

Harry Haynes, 1877-1888. 

O. T. Plummer, 1888-1893. 

The Present Retrial of the Saloon. — The white-souled Harry 
Haynes was sadly disappointed in his expectation that State 
prohibition would be realized in the election August 4, 1887, and 
it may be that this scribe is also destined to be disappointed in 
his expectation, that it will be realized when the people render 
their verdict in the present retrial of the saloon case, but it 
will take an adverse verdict to convince him. The writer confi- 
dently believes that in the thought of the people of Texas the 
saloon is already dead, and all that is needed is to give the vot- 
ing citizenship a chance to pronounce its obituary at the ballot 
box. The longer the obsequies are delayed the more offensive 
will the saloon corpse become to the nostrils of Christian 
decency and the more emphatic will be the declaration of an 
outraged people in favor of its burial deep out of sight forever. 

Conspicuous among the -champions of prohibition in 1887 
were Rev. B. H. Carroll, Rev. W. K. Homan, deceased, Dr. J. B. 
Cranfill, United States Senators Sam. Bell Maxey and John H. 
Reagan, Congressman D. B. Culberson, Col. W. B. Herndon, 
Henry M. Furman, Joseph W. Bailey and William Poindexter. 
Of the political stalwarts who championed the saloon cause in 
that campaign, those now living, almost without exception, have 
either changed to the pro side or suffered political eclipse. 
This fact ought to contain a lesson for a few moist statesmen 
in Texas today who are outdoing Jeremiah of old in their lamen- 
tations over the threatened doom of the drunkard factories in 
Texas. 



24 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 




TEXAS PROHIBITION CHAMPIONS 
1, Rev. B. H. Carroll, D. D.; 2, Rev. W. K. Homan (dead); 3, Rev. Granville Jones; 
4, George W. Carroll; 5, Judge J. H. (Gyclone) Davis; 6, R. C. Dial; 7, Rev. J. H. 
Gambrell; 8, Rev. H. M. Perkins, Sec. Presbyterian Temp. Committee: 9, Harry 
H. Halsell; 10, J. M. Pinckney (dead) , Texas' Prohibition Martyr; 11, R. E. Grabel; 
12, Rev. J. B. Gambrell, D. D. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 25 



CHAPTER IV. 

LOCAL OPTION PROHIBITION. 

Father of Texas Local Option. — Col. E. L. Dohoney of Paris, 
Texas, enjoys the distinction of being the father of Texas local 
option. As a member of the Texas Legislature from 1870 to 
1874, he tried to have the liquor license law repealed and also 
tried to secure the enactment of other anti-liquor measures but 
failed. Convinced that a Texas Legislature could not be ex- 
pected to enact anti-liquor laws unless compelled to do so, 
Colonel Dohoney, as a member of the Constitutional Convention 
of 1875, got incorporated into the new constitution a mandatory 
provision requiring the enactment of a liquor local option law. 
As this constitutional provision was the entering wedge that has 
riven the liquor power in Texas, once so well nigh invincible, 
it deserves particular notice, and I can not do better than quote 
Colonel Dehoney's own account of it. (Note. — In this extract, 
Lafayette means Dohoney.) 

First Local Option Speech. — "In 1875, when he (Dohoney) 
announced as a candidate for the Constitutional Convention, he 
made the first local option speech ever made in the South. He 
stated if elected to the convention he would use his best ef- 
forts to have such a mandatory provision placed in the consti- 
tution. His competitor took bold issue with him, declaring 
that liquor was a good thing, and to prove it took a bottle out of 
his pocket and drank while speaking. Lafayette's friends told 
him he was the biggest fool that ever ran for office, and that 
he would be beaten world without end. His competitor did 
beat him nearly five hundred votes in the city of Paris, in the 
Democratic primary in which they were running, but the farmers 
came to Lafayette's relief, and he carried the county and received 
the nomination. He was elected to the convention and fulfilled 
his pledge to the people. 

Resolution Introduced by J. F. Johnson. — "Early in the ses- 
sion he (Dohoney) drew up the resolution for local option, but 
as he was already regarded as a prohibition crank, he had J. F. 



26 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

Johnson (a Baptist preacher) of Franklin County to introduce 
the resolution. It was referred to the committee on general pro- 
visions, and soon afterward Lafayette had Mr. Johnson added to 
that committee, Lafayette already being a member. Judge WesJ 
of Austin was chairman of the committee, and Lafayette stood 
next to him on the list. Judge West was intensely opposed to 
local option, and refused to bring the question up for consid- 
eration before the committee. The resolution slept quietly in 
the committee unnoticed for nearly three months. Two weeks 
before the adjournment, Lafayette forced a consideration of the 
resolution. He made a plausible statement to the committee; 
told them that local option did not commit the State to pro- 
hibition; that it merely adopted the good old Democratic doc- 
trine of local self-government, and left it to the people of a 
county, justice precinct, town or city, to decide by fair majority 
vote whether the saloons should continue, or be prohibited in 
the prescribed limits. 

Reagan, Stockdale and De Morse to the Rescue. — To his agree- 
able surprise Judge Reagan, Governor Stockdale, Colonel De 
Morse and other Democratic leaders came to his assistance, and 
he secured a favorable report from the committee. But it was 
said that local option would be defeated in the main body of 
the convention, and that three of the ablest lawyers in the 
State would advocate striking out the provision. Lafayette 
thoroughly prepared himself for a great debate, but it having 
transpired that the Grangers were going to line up for local 
option, the distinguished lawyers failed to put in an appearance. 
The question came up in the last days of the convention; many 
members had gone home, and there remained only sixty in their 
seats, of which fifteen voted to strike out local option, and forty- 
five voted in favor it. 

A German from Bastrop County moved to strike out local 
option, and made a furious .speech against it, but there was so 
little sense in his talk that Lafayette declined to reply; and 
the vote was quietly taken, resulting as already stated. 

Local Option Law Enacted. — "Thus local option became a 
part of the Constitution, which was ratified by the people in 
1876 by an immense majority. This mandatory provision re- 



RUM ©N THE RUN IN TEXAS 27 

quired the Legislature to pass a local option law at its first 
session. The Fourteenth Legislature, which assembled in 1876, 
passed the present local option law, which with its several 
amendments, is still the law of Texas. Lafayette, with the as- 
sistance of J. E. Ellis, drafted the original law in Paris and 
sent it to the Hon. J. M. Biard, member from Lamar County, who 
introduced the bill in the Legislature. 

First Local Option Election. — "The first election under this 
law was held in Lamar County December 27, 1876, and was 
gotten up by Lafayette. The citizens of Paris held a public 
meeting at the court house, which was attended by all the law- 
yers, all the doctors, all the business men and a part of the 
preachers. This meeting decided that if local option was en- 
acted in Lamar County it would ruin Paris. They sent out run- 
ners to every part of the county to prejudice the minds of the 
people against the movement, and when Lafayette undertook to 
canvass the county he could not get a hearing. He spoke at 
Roxton to about twenty voters, and at Biardstown to about 
twenty-five, and gave up the contest in disgust. Local option 
was so badly beaten in the county that its friends never in- 
quired for the vote." — From Dohoney's Average American. 

It seems that Colonel Dohoney is in error in saying that the 
Lamar County election was the first under the local option 
law, as the Jasper County records show that county voted dry 
by fourteen majority Dec. 18, 1876. This antedates the Lamar 
County election by nine days. Jasper has remained dry ever 
since. 

Lamar County a Typical Case. — Five years after the land- 
slide against prohibition in 1876, Lamar County reversed it- 
self and adopted local option. Then it voted wet again, and again 
in 1905 went dry, and in the spring of 1909 retained prohibition 
after four years' trial by over seven hundred majority — more 
than double the majority by which it had been adopted four years 
previously. Its status is regarded as fixed now, permanently 
in the dry column. Lamar is a fair illustration of the results 
in most populous North Texas counties, that are now dry. At 
first overwhelmingly wet, later voting dry, then vacillating back 
and forth once or twice, perhaps, and finally settling down as 
dry for good, after the people have had a fair chance to see that 



28 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

prohibition with even half a chance is infinitely more satis- 
factory than license. 

Jasper First Dry County. — As before noted, Jasper County 
was voted dry by fourteen majority Dec. 18, 1876, making it 
the first dry county in Texas. Following close after the first 
local option election in Jasper County and the second in Lamar 
County, came Rockwall, Texas' Lilliputian county, which went 
dry, and, barring one short relapse, has remained sound in the 
faith ever since. Col. E. C. Heath, then quite a young man, 
secured the signers to Rockwall's first local option petition, 
which was filed in November, 1876, less than ninety days after 
the law went into effect, though the election was not held until 
January, 1877. 

Only Three Dry Counties in 1887. — Close on the heels of Jas- 
per and Rockwall, which enjoy the distinction of being the first 
counties in Texas to go dry, came other North Texas counties. 
A great number of precincts and school districts also availed 
themselves of the opportunity given in the local option law to 
banish the liquor vice-incubators from their borders. For the 
first decade, however, most counties vacillated back and forth 
from dry to wet, and wet to dry, so that when the State pro- 
hibition campaign came on in 1887 only three whole counties — 
Jasper, Rockwall and Jones — remained dry. Jones County was 
organized dry, and never had a saloon. 

Victory in the 1887 Defeat. — The overwhelming defeat of 
the State-wide prohibition in 1887 was regarded by many as the 
"Waterloo of prohibition in Texas. " Subsequent results, how- 
ever, have demonstrated that the apparent defeat was in fact a 
stupendous victory. The discussion throughout the State in 
that campaign of the basic principles of civic righteousness upon 
which prohibition is bottomed, sowed the seed from which was 
reaped a harvest of local option victories that drove the saloons 
from a hundred and forty odd counties and hundreds of precincts 
in other counties, in the decade extending from 1893 to 1903. 

A Five Years' Lull.— From 1903 to 1908 the fight, so far as 
counties are concerned, was almost a stand-off between the wets 
and dries, the pros gaining a few counties and the antis re- 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 29 

covering about an equal number. The pros, however, gained 
many precincts. 

Strong Proward Trend Again. — At the beginning of 1908 the 
trend seemed to be mildly proward again, notwithstanding the 
energies of the prohibitionists were engrossed mainly in an ef- 
fort to secure the submission of a State-wide prohibition amend- 
ment. During 1908 Polk and Lampasas Counties returned to the 
dry column and a number of new precincts were voted dry. 

The refusal of a liquor-serving minority in the Thirty-First 
Legislature to submit the prohibition constitutional amendment 
to a vote in the spring of 1909 seems to have given a new 
impetus to the local option movement. In the counties which 
the liquorites tried to recover during the year, the pros in- 
variably held their own by increasing majorities, while in the 
wet counties attacked by the pros they uniformly reduced the 
anti majorities in preceding elections, and captured numbers of 
new precincts and six counties — Aransas, Clay, Limestone, Ed- 
wards, Leon and Henderson. 

Growing Popularity of Amended Law. — At present (1910) 
fully seven-eighths of the geographical area of the State and 
three-fourths of the population are under local prohibition, and 
the law has been so strengthened by making the penalty for its 
violation a penitentiary sentence, and by the enactment of col- 
lateral statutes so facilitating its enforcement as to greatly in- 
crease the popularity of local prohibition, which in the hands 
of officers of ordinary ability and honor now "prohibits" as ef- 
fectually as any law in the criminal code. 

On With the War! — So the acquisition by the pros of new 
territory during 1910 ought to be more rapid than during any 
year since 1903. Many of the sixty partially dry counties 
ought to be made dry, and several of the twenty-two all wet, 
ought to be put into the gray column, part wet only. The pros 
have come to realize that a local option campaign in wet terri- 
tory is always a good investment as a means of education in 
favor of State-wide prohibition, the ultimate goal. Hence the 
natural thing to expect is that every one of the twenty-two all 
wet counties and every one of the sixty partly wet counties, 
in which liquor saloons are now licensed, will have either a 



30 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

precinct or a county election during 1910. On with the war, 
county by county, precinct by precinct. There is no surer route 
to submission. Drive the liquor crime-breeders all into Dallas, 
Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Waco, Galveston and 
El Paso, and see how quickly these cities will vomit them out. 
They already have nearly half the total number of saloons in 
the State. Let's give them the rest. Take a look at the map 
on page 4 with its 163 white counties and join in the cnorus. 

< 
We'll make the map all white, we'll make the map all white, 
For the safety of our hearthstones, we'll make the map all white; 
We'll "knock the black all out," and make the map all white, 
In the int'rest of clean government, we'll make the map all white. 

It was feared by many that the new statute making illicit 
liquor selling in dry territory a penitentiary offense might make 
prohibition less popular on the ground that "a term in the peni- 
tentiary was too severe a punishment for selling a little whis- 
key," but recent elections in Grayson, Llano, Howard, Bowie, 
Wood, and other counties where prohibition was adopted with 
full knowledge that it meant prohibition with a penitentiary 
penalty, proves that the people of Texas want prohibition that 
prohibits and will approve whatever penalty may be necessary 
to get it. On the other hand, this law is certain to discourage 
the liquorites from calling for elections in dry counties be- 
cause every dry county that votes displaces the existing jail 
penalty by a term in the penitentiary and shifts the expense 
of prosecuting liquor law-breakers from the county treasury 
to the State treasury and thereby taxes the liquor interests in 
the wet counties to prosecute their confederates in dry counties 
who violate the law. For like reasons the pros should be en- 
couraged to bring on elections in dry as well as wet counties 
to get the benefit of the penitentiary penalty in the new law 
and to shift the expense of prosecutions from their counties 
to the State at large, and further, because "bootleggers" of 
liquor will naturally concentrate in counties having the light 
penalty. And this will add impetus to the State-wide prohi- 
bition movement by helping tax payers in wet counties, who 
are already almost persuaded to see that it will be money in 
their pockets to have State-wide prohibition stop the liquor 
distributing centers in wet counties from fomenting liquor law 
breaking in dry counties which must be prosecuted at the ex- 
pense of tax payers in wet counties. All of which brightens 
the prospect for the speedy banishment of the liquor traffic 
from Texas. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 31 



CHAPTER V. 
STATE PROHIBITION. 

Prohibition a Primary Duty of Government. — The traffic in 
intoxicating liquors being always and everywhere inherently 
and incurably a source of evil and of injury to society, and 
never a source of good, a civilized government which exists to 
protect its subjects from recognized sources of injury is bound to 
suppress the liquor traffic for the same reason that it suppresses 
high-way robbery. 

A person who is a "prohibitionist from principle" is neces- 
sarily for prohibition from a square inch to the universe. Pre- 
cinct, county, State and National prohibition all rest on pre- 
cisely the same principle — the duty of civil government to sup- 
press moral wrong and promote the general welfare. 

It is rank folly for a man to claim to be "for county prohi- 
bition and against State prohibition on principle." To the real 
prohibitionist local option is acceptable just like a morsel 
of bread is acceptable to a hungry man until he can get a big- 
ger piece or a whole loaf s A hungry man is glad to get a 
crumb and gladder still to get a whole loaf, but he is never will- 
ing to stop with a crumb when loaves are in reach. So with 
the man who is a prohibitionist from conviction, rather than 
from self-interest or political expediency. He is content with 
precinct prohibition till he can get county prohibition and then 
he is content with county prohibition until there is a chance 
to get State prohibition, and then he is for the larger good. 

Submission in 1887. — So, feeling there was a chance for the 
larger good, the friends of temperance in Texas petitioned the 
Twentieth Legislature to submit to a vote a State prohibition 
constitutional amendment. Governor L. S. Ross, who then oc- 
cupied the executive chair, although an anti-prohibitionist, rec- 
ommended the measure and the amendment was submitted as 
follows: 

"To amend Section 20, of Article 16, of the Constitution of 
the State of Texas. 



32 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

"Section 1. Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State 
of Texas, that Section 20, of Article 16, of the Constitution be so 
amended as to read as follows, to-wit: 'Section 20. The manu- 
facture, sale and exchange of intoxicating liquors except for 
medicinal, mechanical, sacramental and scientific purposes, is 
hereby prohibited in the State of Texas.' The Legislature shall, 
at the first session held after the adoption of this amendment, 
enact necessary laws to put this provision into effect. 

The Vote in the House. — On the submission resolution Jan. 
30, 1887, was as follows: 

Ayes (for submission) : Pendleton, Alexander, Baird, Baylor, 
Bell of Cooke, Bell of Denton, Boothe, Bransford, Brown- 
ing, Buchanan, Camp, Chapman, Christenberry, Clark, 
Clegg, Cone, Curry, Davis of Falls, Davis of Shelby, Ellison, 
Faubian, Fuller, Garner, Gill, Gilliland, Graves, Grose, Hargis, 
Harrison, Heath, Hudgins, Huling, Humphreys, Humphreys, Ken- 
nedy, Jackson, Jarrett, Johnson, Jones, Larkin, Lattimer, Mc- 
Caleb, McClannahan, McGaughey, McGee, McKinney, Melson. 
Mills, Millner, Newton, Newton, Nicholson, Northington, Page, 
Parker, Parks, Patterson, Prendergast, Rugel, Sadler, Sharp, 
Shield, Skinner, Smith, Steele, Stringer 

Nays (against submission) : Blair, Garwood, Goeth, Gresham, 
Hunt, Kirlicks, Latham, Light, Matejowsky, McGuire, Moore, 
Moore, Payne, Plumley, Robinson, Shelburne, Showalter, Smith, 
Staples, Tomkins, Woolsey 

Absent: Bassett, Battel, Richardson. 

The Vote in the Senate. — On the submission resolution Feb. 
25, 1887: 

Yeas: Abercrombie, Allen, Armistead, Bell, Calhoun, Camp, 
Davis, Douglas, Douglas, Field, Frank, Garrison, Gregg, Harri- 
son, Houston, James, McDonald, McManus, Simkins, Stinson, 
Terrell, Upshaw. 

Nays: Burges, Burney, Claiborne, Glasscock, Knittle, Lane, 
Pope, Woods. 

Interesting Comparisons. — After a strenuous campaign the 
election was held on the first Thursday in August, 1887, re- 
sulting in a defeat of prohibition in the State by a majority of 
91,337. Following is the vote by counties, a matter of no little 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



33 



historical interest. Note that out of 190 counties voting, only 
twenty-nine gave a majority for prohibition, and they in the 
main were sparsely settled counties at that time. Fannin, Cooke, 
Tarrant, and Williamson were the only populous counties that 
gave majorities "for prohibition" in 1887. 

Compare this list with the map on page 4 and see what in- 
roads prohibition has since made on the 1887 list of wet coun- 
ties. Note that every county voting pro in 1884, except Cooke, 
Tarrant, Williamson and Runnels, is now dry under local option. 
It will prove interesting also to compare the vote in this election 
with the vote in the same counties on submission. Note that 
while only twenty-nine counties gave a majority for prohi- 
bition in 1887, 149 gave a majority for submission in 1908. 
There is reason to believe that State-wide prohibition would get 
a much stronger vote now than submission got in 1908. 



Vote on Prohibition by Counties in 1887: 



For Against 

Anderson 1221 2109 

Andrews 

Angelina 420 665 

Aransas 6 109 

Archer 54 44 

Armstrong 

/vtascosa 210 382 

Austin 325 2987 

Bailey 

Bandera 236 428 

Bastrop 774 2479 

Baylor 142 84 

Bee 124 253 

Bell 2742 3501 

Bexar 773 6344 

Blanco 371 507 

Borden 

Bosque 1207 1494 

Bowie 1558 1321 

Brazoria 284 1031 

Brazos 898 1965 

Brewster 36 49 

Brisco 

Brown 846 1150 

Burleson 814 1560 

Burnet 682 802 

Caldwell 1028 1538 

Calhoun 4 143 



Callahan 376 

Cameron 85 

Camp 683 

Carson 

Cass 1621 

Castro 

Chambers 107 

Cherokee 1459 

Childress 28 

Clay 321 

Cochran 

Coke 

Coleman 397 

Collin 2756 

Collingsworth 

Colorado 743 

Comal 27 

Comanche 626 

Concho 83 

Cooke 2073 

Coryell 1263 

Cottle 

Crane 

Crockett 

Crosby 35 

Dallam 

Dallas 3626 

Dawson 



For Against 



391 

1216 

489 

2019 

224 

1828 

16 

395 



429 

2895 

2876 
1264 
1398 
74 
1973 
1763 



16 



6381 



34 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



For Against 

Deaf Smith 

Delta 770 692 

Denton 1639 2354 

De Witt 415 1709 

Dickens 

Dimmit 61 53 

Donley 34 84 

Duvai 17 283 

Eastland 563 774 

Encinal 16 

Ector 

Edwards 72 116 

Ellis 2711 3337 

El Paso 211 1866 

Erath 1013 1651 

Falls 1117 2894 

Fannin 4071 2910 

Fayette 791 4627 

Fisher 77 54 

Floyd 

Foard 

Fort Bend 399 1595 

Franklin 421 749 

Freestone 748 2286 

Frio 152 236 

Greer 21 24 

Galveston 1206 2561 

Garza 

Gillespie 59 1186 

Glasscock 

Goliad 175 739 

Gonzales 881 2069 

Gray 

Grayson 3991 4147 

Gregg 680 928 

Grimes 1017 2668 

Gaudalupe 731 2045 

Hale 15 1 

Hall 

Hamilton 708 998 

Hansford 

Hardeman 139 181 

Hardin 228 309 

Harris 1515 4323 

Harrison 899 2951 

Hartley 

Haskell 23 75 

Hays 883 954 

Hemphill 



For Against 

Henderson 813 1415 

Hidalgo 6 435 

Hill 2562 2o^5 

Hockley 

Hood 680 589 

Hopkins 1655 2003 

Houston 1088 2179 

Howard 86 112 

Hunt 2281 2761 

Hutchinson 

Irion 

Jack 495 740 

Jackson 193 313 

Jasper 144 668 

Jeff Davis 22 78 

Jefferson 169 512 

Johnson 2127 2161 

Jones 269 65 

Karnes 120. 294 

Kaufman 2140 2249 

Kendall 64 636 

Kent 

Kerr 252 370 

Kimble 165 207 

King 

Kinney 39 256 

Knox 72 41 

Lamar 3164 3200 

Lamb 

Lampasas 762 797 

La Salle 60 135 

Lavaca 591 2393 

Lee 447 1473 

Leon 719 1691 

Liberty 223 460 

Limestone 1432 2528 

Lipscomb 

Live Oak 73 213 

Llano 417 626 

Loving 

Lubbock 

Lynn 

Madison 371 747 

Marion 390 1336 

Martin 32 47 

Mason 331 491 

Matagorda 114 514 

Maverick 25 420 

McCulloch 174 268 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



35 



For Ag'st 

McLennan 3423 4413 

McMullen 45 71 

Medina 128 842 

Menard 59 125 

Midland 82 28 

Milam 1615 2778 

Mills 

Mitchell 184 148 

Montague 1173 1660 

Montgomery 803 1059 

Moore 

Morris 428 609 

Motley 

Nacogdoches 731 1670 

Navarro 2392 3969 

Newton 123 448 

Nolan 142 75 

Nueces 171 796 

Ochiltree . . . .• 

Oldham 18 65 

Orange 209 310 

Palo Pinto 509 619 

Panola 704 1508 

Parker 1461 1684 

Parmer 

Pecos 4 74 

Polk 398 1059 

Potter 

Presidio 1 395 

Rains 375 387 

Randall 

Reagan 

Red River 1885 2052 

Reeves 54 73 

Refugio 13 133 

Roberts 

Robertson 1423 3219 

Rockwall 459 544 

Runnels 234 160 

Rusk 1291 2494 

Sabine 256 188 

San Augustine .. 336 713 

San Jacinto 226 860 

San Patricio ... 8 79 

San Saba 527 389 

Schleicher 

Scurry 53 12 

Shackelford 144 124 

Shelby 924 1177 



For Ag'st 

Sherman 

Smith 1719 2939 

Somervell 253 282 

Starr 18 250 

Stephens 311 295 

Sterling 

Stonewall 16 8 

Sutton 

Swisher 

Tarrant 3136 2833 

Taylor 535 270 

Terrell 

Terry 

Throckmorton . . 102 40 

Titus 587 758 

Tom Green 192 512 

Travis 2421 4104 

Trinity 451 668 

Tyler 617 669 

Upshur 885 1259 

Upton 

Uvalde 206 280 

Val Verde 91 180 

Van Zandt 1250 1807 

Victoria 229 1178 

Walker '. 528 1392 

Waller 385 1533 

Ward 

Washington 1592 3430 

Webb 56 694 

Wharton 225 1175 

Wheeler 43 113 

Wichita 129 146 

Wilbarger 187 118 

Williamson 2338 2018 

Wilson 378 1154 

Winkler 

Wise 1522 2321 

Wood 1126 1558 

Yoakum 

Young 336 361 

Zapata 69 

Zavala 61 46 

Total 129,270 220,627 

Majority 91,357 

L. S. ROSS, Gov. 

J. S. HOGG, Att'y Gen. 

J. M. MOORE, Sec. of State. 



36 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



1887 Liquor Logic. — The principal arguments urged against 
prohibition in 1887 were of a political character. It was de- 
nounced as "un-Democratic, anti-Republican and un-Populistic." 
One Senator from Guadalupe County declared it was "as inno- 
cent of Democracy as the devil was of pure and unadulterated 
religion," and that it was "as impossible to run the Democratic 
party without whiskey as to run the Baptist Church without 
water." The political stalwarts, with a few honorable excep- 
tions, espoused the liquor cause and strenuously maintained that 
no man could vote for prohibition and remain a Democrat. This 
kind of political salt has lost its savor in Texas, however, and 
will hardly save the saloon's "meat" in another campaign. And 
yet these same specious arguments in changed attire may be 
looked for in the next State liquor platform. 

Back to Local Option. — After the prohibitionists had recov- 
ered slightly from the shock of the liquor landslide in 1887, they 
turned again to local option and during the next twenty years, 
county after county, they wrested seven-eighths of the terri- 
tory of the .State from rum tyranny, and still (1910) the good 
work goes on. See Chapter IV. on Local Option Prohibition. 

Turn Again to State Prohibition.— By the close of 1905 it 
was apparent to the leaders of the Local Option Association then 
leading the fight that State-wide prohibition offered the best 
outlook for further progress, but the people were strongly at- 
tached to the county-by-county plan that had accomplished such 
remarkable results. So it took two years more to bring the 
great body of the friends of prohibition in the State to see that 
the liquor traffic entrenched behind the vagrant and mercenary 
vote in the cities, and behind the foreign-born and the negro 
vote in Central and South Texas counties could not be dislodged 
by a precinct or county vote. Gradually, however, this became 
apparent to the general public, and the people came also to see 
that it was a waste of energy and of resources to have a fiercely 
contested election every two years to determine whether prohi- 
bition should remain in dry counties or whether the saloons 
should return, when the question might be settled once for all 
Texas by a State-wide campaign. This conviction was intensi- 
fied by the constant effort of the liquor dealers of wet counties 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 37 

to s*ell liquor in dry counties in defiance of the local law, and 
the expressed will of the people. 

State-wide Prohibition Conference, Jan. 16, 1908. — So, at its 
regular annual meeting at Dallas, Dec. 26, 1907, the executive 
committee of the State Local Option Association decided to issue 
a call for a conference of the friends of prohibition to consider 
the advisability of inaugurating a campaign for State-wide pro- 
hibition. Pursuant to the call this conference met at Dallas, 
Jan. 16, 1908. The meeting was called to order by H. H. Hal- 
sell, president of the Texas Local Option Association, which had 
called the conference. After prayer led by Rev. J. L. Ward of 
Decatur, Rev. Arthur W. Jones was elected chairman and H. A. 
Ivy secretary of the conference. 

H. A. .Ivy stated the object of the conference and at once 
plunged the meeting in medias res, as Virgil would say, by in- 
troducing a submission resolution: 

"Resolved, That it is the sense of this Conference that the 
Thirty-First Legislature of Texas be requested to submit to a 
vote of the people an amendment to the State Constitution pro- 
hibiting the liquor traffic in all Texas." 

After running the gauntlet of substitutes and amendments 
and a strenuous discussion for two hours the resolution was 
adopted amid enthusiasm with but two dissenting votes. 

Conference of Pro Democrats. — The Texas Prohibition Federa- 
tion was organized to carry out the purposes of the resolution, 
and the details of the work referred to an executive committee. 
This committee decided to have the pro-Democrats on the com- 
mittee call a conference of Prohibition Democrats at Fort Worth 
to determine if it were expedient to ask for a vote in the Demo- 
cratic primary "for" and "against" the submission of a pro- 
hibition amendment. This conference of Democratic prohibition- 
ists met at Fort Worth Feb. 29, 1908, and after a vigorous dis- 
cussion of the proposition, decided in favor of a Democratic 
primary vote, and a committee with Sterling P. Strong as chair- 
man and H. A. Ivy secretary, was appointed to conduct the cam- 
paign for submission. As vigorous a campaign as the limited 
means and time would permit was waged, resulting in a small 
majority in favor of submission. (See Appendix IV.) Below is 
the vote by counties which is of special interest because the 



38 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



last expression of the people throughout the State on any phase 
of the prohibition issue. 

Vote in Democratic Primary July 25, 1908, on Submission: 



County — 



Submission 
For Against 



Anderson 1199 999 

Angelina 990 905 

Aransas 67 42 

Archer 188 259 

Armstrong 205 35 

Atascosa 201 272 

Austin 124 1762 

Bandera 148 197 

Bastrop 648 950 

Baylor 430 276 

Bee 308 317 

Bell 2871 2483 

Bexar 1118 6038 

Blanco 127 254 

Borden 107 86 

Bosque 1020 971 

Bowie 1480 712 

Brazoria 226 139 

Brazos 422 718 

Brewster 170 71 

Briscoe 86 63 

Brown 1215 962 

Burleson 524 1013 

Burnet 579 617 

Caldwell 854 883 

Calhoun 100 219 

Callahan 606 772 

Cameron 32 815 

Camp 485 356 

Carson 92 24 

Cass 1032 611 

Castro 66 14 

Chambers 28 30 

Cherokee 869 604 

Childress 483 182 

Clay 690 373 

Coke 341 119 

Coleman 1038 512 

Collin 2873 1380 

Collingsworth . . 295 74 

Colorado 387 1056 

Comal 26 1037 



County- 



Submission 
For Against 



Comanche 1234 1348 

Concho 199 126 

Cooke 1630 1324 

Coryell 1224 1119 

Cottle 103 58 

Crockett 58 44 

Crosby 124 23 

Dallam 70 17 

Dallas 454C 4721 

Dawson 147 71 

Deaf Smith 280 32 

Delta 770 469 

Denton ' 1527 1449 

DeWitt 233 1493 

Dickens Ill 52 

Dimmit 16 6 

Donley 418 111 

Duval 1 622 

Eastland 1525 681 

Ector 72 61 

Edwards 7 9 

Ellis 3189 1802 

El Paso 415 2155 

Erath 1524 1088 

Falls 1382 1123 

Fannin 2334 1495 

Fayette 259 2533 

Fisher 663 279 

Floyd 244 42 

Foard 203 125 

Fort Bend 192 369 

Franklin 543 598 

Freestone 504 991 

Frio. 292 95 

Gaines . 140 40 

Galveston 693 2178 

Garza 48 13 

Gillespie 28 181 

Glasscock 64 30 

Goliad 

Gonzales 924 1272 

Gray 



HUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



39 



Submission 

County — For Against 

Grayson 2949 2248 

Gregg 507 193 

Grimes 418 434 

Guadalupe 321 1034 

Hale 308 70 

Hall 541 204 

Hamilton 875 867 

Hansford 

Hardeman 531 303 

Hardin 552 ' 448 

Harris 2363 5152 

Harrison 930 774 

Hartley 108 31 

Haskell 672 502 

Hays 854 542 

Hemphill 46 1 

Henderson 911 877 

Hidalgo 587 

Hill 2714 1381 

Hood 910 290 

Hopkins 1789 1440 

Houston 1054 727 

Howard 391 286 

Hunt 3067 1201 

Hutchinson 

Irion 118 21 

Jack 571 299 

Jackson 159 120 

Jasper 381 320 

Jeff Davis 25 6 

Jefferson 1077 1331 

Johnson 2265 1215 

Jones 1328 607 

Karnes 458 678 

Kaufman 1749 1042 

Kendall 31 295 

Kent 103 62 

Kerr 112 150 

Kimble 164 167 

King 30 19 

Kinney 20 122 

Knox 482 448 

Lamar 1993 2151 

Lampasas 577 523 

LaSalle 46 85 

Lavaca 323 2207 



Submission 

County — For Against 

Lee 180 940 

Leon 580 453 

Liberty 376 289 

Limestone 1596 1044 

Lipscomb 

Live Oak 44 9 

Llano 387 386 

Lubbock 197 40 

Lynn 152 24 

McCulloch 453 281 

McLennan 3591 2713 

McMullen 78 15 

Madison 645 354 

Marion 265 185 

Martin 202 60 

Mason 105 81 

Matagorda 249 185 

Maverick 42 217 

Medina 123 174 

Menard 98 196 

Midland 252 147 

Milam 1292 1949 

Mills 463 462 

Mitchell 685 134 

Montague 1371 1012 

Montgomery 543 569 

Moore 

Morris 435 380 

Motley 84 34 

Nacogdoches . . . 1275 898 

Navarro 2113 1810 

Newton 243 188 

Nolan 615 293 

Nueces 292 489 

Ochiltree 45 IS 

Oldham 

Orange 335 384 

Palo Pinto 1137 1143 

Panola 885 426 

Parker 1700 1019 

Parmer 61 13 

Pecos 31 58 

Polk 659 397 

Potter 649 409 

Presidio 83 112 

Rains 275 252 



40 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



Submission 

Counties — ■ For Ag'st 

Randall 175 33 

Reagan 50 37 

Red River 1589 765 

Reeves 168 100 

Refugio 11 59 

Roberts 24 2 

Robertson 628 873 

Rockwall 594 280 

Runnels 1168 712 

Rusk 911 1154 

Sabine 487 228 

S'an Augustine . . 360 305 

San Jacinto 308 209 

San Patricio 13 81 

San Saba 530 628 

Schleicher 148 55 

Scurry 654 328 

Shackelford 204 151 

Shelby 1865 583 

Sherman 

Smith 1579 931 

SomervUl 250 197 

Starr 5 125 

Stephens 503 411 

Sterling 138 51 

Stonewall 181 194 

Sutton 100 59 

Swisher 213 61 

Tarrant 3881 4560 

Taylor 1252 750 

Terrell 10 56 

Terry 140 22 



Submission 
Counties— For Ag'st 

Throckmorton . . 249 125 

Titus 776 467 

Tom Green 793 654 

Travis 1363 2632 

Trinity 486 487 

Tyler 338 368 

Upshur 732 706 

Uvalde 307 129 

Val Verde 144 145 

Van Zandt 1504 728 

Victoria 146 963 

Walker 388 317 

Waller 411 540 

Ward 127 40 

Washington 163 1933 

Webb 20 87 

Wharton 268 571 

Wheeler 167 51 

Wichita 434 251 

Wilbarger 558 310 

Williamson 1450 1903 

Wilson 486 851 

Wise 1803 725 

Wood 691 914 

Yoakum 33 24 

Young 765 371 

Zapata 

Zavalia 

Total for submission. .145,130 
Total against subm's'n.141,441 

Iff' 

Majority for subm'n . 3,689 



Democratic Submission Plank. — Based upon the primary vote 
in favor of submission, the Democratic State Convention, which 
met at San Antonio in August, 1908, incorporated in its platform 
a demand for submission as follows: 

"We demand the submission by the Thirty-first Legislature 
of the State of Texas of a Constitutional amendment to the peo- 
ple of the State of Texas for their adoption or rejection, pro- 
hibiting within the State of Texas the manufacture, sale, gift, 
exchange, and intrastate shipment of spirituous, vinous and malt 
liquors, and medicated bitters capable of producing intoxication, 
except for medical and sacramental purposes. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 41 

"We recommend that the prohibition amendment demanded 
by the recent primary election be submitted to all qualified voters 
at a special election to be held in 1909. We declare. that at such 
.election a vote for or against the amendment shall not be con- 
sidered a test of Democracy, as it is not the purpose of this 
convention to commit the Democratic party for or against prohi- 
bition." 

Republican Anti-Submission Plank. — The Republican platform 
declared against submission as follows: 

"The Constitution of the State of Texas provides that it shall 
be amended by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature 
proposing, and a majority of voters subsequently ratifying any 
amendment. We are opposed to its being amended in any other 
way, and especially by the initiative and referendum method now 
being pursued by the Democratic party, and which, if success- 
ful, will form a dangerous precedent, and tend to destroy sacred 
rights now preserved by the Constitution. We are therefore op- 
posed to the submission by the Thirty-first Legislature of a State- 
wide prohibition amendment, but instead thereof do favor the 
enactment of such legislation of fair and rigidly enforced local 
option and license laws which provide penalties for their viola- 
tion, so severe as to compel their obedience and afford the ut- 
most protection to society." 

The People for Submission 148,000 Strong. — The people rati- 
fied the Democratic platform containing the demand for submis- 
sion by giving Tom Campbell, the Democratic candidate for Gov- 
ernor running on the submission platform, 148,226 majority over 
•Simpson, the Republican candidate, running on the anti-submis- 
sion platform. And yet eleven Senators and forty-four Repre- 
sentatives who had received their commissions through the Demo- 
cratic party trampled its platform under foot and voted against 
submission as demanded by the Republican platform, which the 
people had repudiated at the polls by 148,000. Thus the people 
were denied by their own trusted servants the privilege, which 
they had asked for with the emphasis of 148,000 majority, of 
expressing their sovereign will regarding the liquor traffic. And 
yet these saloon savers, who deserted their party platform and 
committed political treason to save the saloon, still call them- 
selves Democrats, after having by their votes, in effect, slapped 
the people in the face and said, ''Shut up! You shall not tell us 
whether you want saloons in Texas or not." 



42 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

A Deadly Political Heresy. — It is true some of these legislative 
saloon savers try to justify their party treason by saying their 
districts voted against submission, but who ever heard of the 
claim that a district primary vote was mandatory upon anybody 
except delegates to the State convention until these fellows 
wanted an excuse to save the saloon? 

When the convention, in accordance with the primary vote 
in favor of submission, promulgated the party's platform, that 
platform became the law of the party, superseded all contrary 
district instructions, and became binding upon all loyal Demo- 
crats regardless of district votes and district platforms. 

The contention that members of the Legislature were bound 
by the vote of their districts, contrary to the declaration of the 
platform on submission, or any other question, is the rankest 
political heresy, containing in it the seeds of party disintegra- 
tion and death. No political organization can tolerate that doc- 
trine and survive. If the State Democratic organization has not 
vitality enough to expel this heresy from its councils, its day of 
dissolution is at hand. 

This Lesson for the People. — The lesson in all this for the 
people is that they owe it to themselves, to the Texas Democracy, 
and to Texas, to elect to the Thirty-second Legislature men who 
do not regard the liquor saloon as too sacred an institution for 
the people to express their will about — men in whose ears the 
voice of the people sounds louder than the voice of the brewers 
— men whose allegiance to Democracy is stronger than their love 
for the liquor saloon. 

Take a look at the accompanying picture, "Legislative Saloon 
Savers," scrutinize the Legislative vote on submission given be- 
low, and help elect unpurchasable friends of righteous govern- 
ment to the Thirty-second Legislature in 1910. The saloonatics 
will aim to elect men they will not have to buy; we must aim to 
elect men whom they can not buy. 

Vote in the Senate on Submission, 1909. — F*or submission: 
Adams, Alexander, Brachfield, Bryan, Cofer, Greer, Hayter, Hol- 
sey, Mayfield, Meacham, Perkins, Senter, Stokes, Sturgeon, Ter- 
rell of Bowie, Ward— 16. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



43 




U3 
« 

% 

o 
o 

33 

Ed 
> 

! 

o 
< 



■HP %) ' ; ■ 



, .: • 



44 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

Against submission: Harper, Hudspeth, Hume, Kellie, Mas- 
terson, Murray, Paulus, Peeler, Real, Watson, Weinert, Willacy 
—12. 

Absent: Terrell of McLennan, Veal. 

Vote in the House for Submission, 1909. — Anderson, Aston, 
Baker of Hood, Baker of Panola, Ballengee, Barrett, Barlet, Bell, 
Bogard, Bostic, Bowles, Bowman, Branch, Briscoe, Brookerson, 
Brownlee, Cable, Canales, Chaney, Cox, Craven, Crockett of 
Mitchell, Cureton, Currey, Dalby, Dotson, Driggers, Elliott, Fant, 
Fuller, Gaines, German, Gilmore, Graham, Hamilton of Childress, 
Hamilton of McCulloch, Harman, Hill, Horger, Jackson, Jenkins, 
Jennings, Lawson, Leach, Lee, Lively, Luce, Maddox, Marshall, 
Mason, Maxwell, McKinney, McLain, Morris, Munson, Nelson of 
Hopkins, Nelson of Kaufman, Nickles, O'Bryan, Odom, Pharr, 
Porter, Ray, Rayburn, Reedy, Reid, Ridgway, Robertson of Erath, 
Roberson of Bell, Roberson of Travis, Self, Spradley, Stamps, 
Stead, Stephenson, Stepter, Stratton, Strickland, Tarver, Terrell 
of Cherokee, Turner, Vaughn, Westbrook, Wilson. 

Vote in the House Against Submission. — Adams, Allen, 
Bierschwale, Boswell, Brooks, Brookshire, Brown, Buchanan, 
Byrne, Cathey, Caves, Crawford, Crisp, Crocket of Washington, 
Davis, Fitzhugh, Flournoy. Giesen, Haxthausen, Highsmith, John- 
son, Keeble, McCallum, McDonald, McGown, Meeks, *Mobley, 
Moller, O'Bryant, Pearson, Perkins, Rabb, Ralston, Roach, S'chlu- 
ter, Schofield, Smith, Standifer, Terrell of Bexar, Trenckmann, 
Turney, Von Rosenberg, Wahrmund, Werner, Wortham. 

*Note. — Mr. Mobley was for submission, but voted with the 
opposition so as to be in a position to move a reconsideration. 

Absent-excused: Goodman, Pierce, Walter. 

A Significant Change of Sentiment. — As a significant index to 
the marvelous growth of sentiment in Texas against the liquor 
traffic, it is worthy of note that the Democratic Convention of 
Texas in 1884, promptly and overwhelmingly defeated a resolu- 
tion in favor of the submission to a popular vote of a prohibi- 
tion constitutional amendment. At the succeeding convention 
in 1886, ho one could be found among the delegates who had the 
nerve to even introduce such a resolution, although importuned 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 45 

to do so. And yet with the Democratic party on record against 
submission there was no difficulty in securing the passage of a 
submission resolution by the Twentieth Legislature in 1887, be- 
cause the liquorites feeling confident of their ability to defeat 
prohibition at the polls, offered no resistance to speak of. In 
1909 the conditions were just the reverse of those in 1887. The 
Democratic State Convention declared overwhelmingly in favor 
of submission, putting in its platform not merely a recommen- 
dation, but a demand for the submission of a prohibition amend- 
ment to a popular vote. This platform was ratified by the peo- 
ple of the entire State by a majority of 148,000 with the sub- 
mission demand in it, and yet in the face of the platform de- 
mand and the ratification of by the Texas Democracy, a minority 
in a Democratic Legislature refused to submit the question to a 
vote, because the liquorites, fearing that they would lose, brought 
the powerful pressure of organized and monetized liquordom to 
bear to defeat submission. 

A Reasonable Deduction. — It will be observed that submission 
failed of passage, by just two votes in each house. That is, it 
lacked only two votes in each house of receiving a two-thirds ma- 
jority. The Representatives being right fresh from the people 
may be reasonably expected to accurately reflect the sentiment 
of the people of the entire State on prohibition, and I submit 
that the vote in, the House of Representatives, 86 for and 44 
against, gives the best kind of a reason to expect that out of a 
probable vote of 400,000 in the State, statewide prohibition would 
have won by a majority of 50,000 in 1909, and the longer the 
vote is deferred, by refusing the people the hearing they asked 
for, the larger the majority is sure to be. 

Nine whole States are now under State prohibition, which is 
more than ever have been under prohibition at one time before. 
Six of these have adopted the law within the past two years, 
and at this time the one "paramount issue" in all the South and 
in many States of the North is State prohibition. The chances 
are that we will have a solid prohibition South inside of five 
years, and Texas will have an abundance of company when she 
raises the white flag of purity, peace, prohibition and prosperity 
over her vast domain. 



46 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 




OFFICIAL FAMILY, TEXAS STATE W. C. U. T. 
Mrs. Nannie Webb Curtis, Pres.; 2, Mrs. John S. Turner, 4th Past Pres.; 3, Miss 
Hattie Henderson, L. T. L. Sec.; 4, Mrs. W. D. Mihils, Y. Sec.; 5, Mrs. Helen M. 
Stoddard, 3rd Past Pres.; 6, Mrs. S. C. Acheson, 2nd Past Pres. (dead); 7, Mrs. J. 
B. Ammerman, 5th Past Pres.; 8, Mrs. S. J. Sweeney, Evangelist: 9, Miss Lula 
Reed, Treasurer; 10, Miss Frances E. Willard, Past Nat. Pres. (dead); 11. Mrs. 
Jennie Bland Beauchamp, 1st Past Pres. (dead); 12, Miss Fannie L. Armstrong, 
Press Superintendent. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 47 



CHAPTER VI. 

WOMAN'S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE UNION. 

The W. C. T. U. has been one of the most potent agencies 
in creating the sentiment in Texas that has brought the vice- 
breeding saloon before the bar of public opinion to be tried for 
its life as a hated criminal. 

First Union in Texas. — In 1882 Miss Frances E. Willard, presi- 
dent of the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union, 
wrote to a minister in Paris, Texas, expressing a desire to come 
to Texas and organize the women against the saloon power, 
then dominating the Nation. This minister, unwilling to be re- 
sponsible for the influence she might exert, gave the letter to 
Col. E. L. Dohoney, who was known to believe in woman's pub- 
lic work. Colonel Dohoney shouldered the responsibility and in- 
vited Miss Willard to visit Paris, to deliver a lecture and or- 
ganize. The feeling was so strong against women on the plat- 
form that the churches refused to open their doors, so Colonel 
Dohoney rented the opera house. Through his efforts, a large and 
enthusiastic audience was secured. Miss Willard came and on 
Sunday night, May 9, 1882, in Colonel Dohoney's parlor, the first 
local union in Texas was organized with the following officers: 
Mrs. Senator S. B. Maxey, Paris, president; Mrs. Eunice Pascoe, 
Sherman, corresponding secretary; Mrs. Preston, Austin, record- 
ing secretary; Mrs. W. D. Knowles, Dallas, treasurer; Mrs. A. P. 
Boyd, Paris, corresponding secretary. 

On this trip Miss Willard organized unions at Texarkana, 
Denison, Sherman,' Marshall, Austin, Waco, San Antonio, Gal- 
veston and Houston. Soon after this Mrs. Lily Hathaway or- 
ganized Blossom Prairie and Terrell. 

First State W. C. T. U. — A State organization was formed in 
the spring of 1883, with the following officers: Mrs. Jennie 
Bland Beauchamp, Denton, president; Mrs. Lizzie D. Johnson, 
Paris, corresponding secretary; Professor Harvey, Denison, re- 
cording secretary; Mrs. E. J. Robinson, Paris, treasurer. 



48 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

Heroic Spirit of the Originators. — Never did an organization 
start out under more discouraging circumstances. The new presi- 
dent was a timid little woman, knowing nothing of public affairs, 
she having spent her life in the seclusion of home with a house 
full of children. There was no money; the public to whom these 
brave women were pledging their lives was indifferent, and last 
and worst of all a great liquor traffic in partnership with the 
Government was glaring at them. But these were mothers, 
Christian women who loved their husbands, their homes and 
their children. They were patriots who loved their country, and 
whose names should be placed beside the signers of the Declara- 
tion of Independence, for courage and patriotism. 

Mrs. Beauchamp's Administration (1883-88) — Mrs. Beauchamp 
took the field, traveling all over the State. Frequently hungry and 
cold, sometimes poorly dressed, she struggled on. Bad men 
said mean things about the W. C. T. U., but Mrs. Beauchamp 
bravely stood the storm and came out more than conqueror. 
The last year of her administration she traveled five thousand 
miles, lecturing, organizing and sowing the seed of the great 
harvest we are reaping today. 

In 1884, at the Corsicana convention, Miss Annie Horner of 
Denton was elected corresponding secretary and to her fidelity 
and efficiency, much of the success is due. 

In 1886 Mrs. Beauchamp visited the penitentiary in Rusk. 
Rev. J. C. Wool am, the chaplain, drew Mrs. Beauchamp's atten- 
tion to the fact that of the 3000 prisoners 300 were boys. 
He urged the necessity of separating these from the hardened 
criminals. Mrs. Beauchamp directed the W. C. T. U. to send peti- 
tions to that effect to the Legislature. The result was the boys' 
reformatory at Gates ville. 

Another petition secured the State Orphan Home at Corsi- 
cana. During this administration, chiefly through the efforts of 
Mrs. M. M. Clardy, the disgraceful "age of consent" for girls 
was raised from ten to twelve years. 

In 1885, Mrs. Beauchamp started a small official organ called 
"The Bulletin Board," which through various changes with many 
editors, kept steadily on its way, and is now "The, Texas White 
Ribbon," edited by Mrs. S. H. Dixon, Austin. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 49 

A Rescue Home for erring girls, and a Boot-Blacks' Home 
were organized in Fort Worth. The latter, now the Tarrant 
County Orphans' Home, in a fine new building, is still doing its 
beneficent work. 

The campaign for State prohibition in 1887 enlisted every 
atom of strength the W. C. T. U. could muster. Aug. 4 was 
election day. All day long in many places little children, with 
flags flying and banners waving, sang songs and marched the 
streets, under direction of consecrated women. 

The sight brought tears from many eyes and curses and 
blessings from many lips. Church doors all over the State stood 
wide open from early dawn till the polls closed, the bells ringing 
every hour, brought more men, women and children to the house 
of prayer. But the saloon won by over 90,000 majority. 

The day after the election Mrs. Beauchamp called a meet- 
ing of the executive board at her home in Denton, and with sub- 
missive prayer they again committed their cause to God. They 
paid their debts, seni out new speakers, and went straight on, 
and are still going on. They have been in the fight a quarter of a 
century, and have faith to believe they will sing ''Praise God 
from Whom All Blessings Flow" before the closed door of the 
last Texas saloon. 

The negroes are now doing excellent work under the direc- 
tion of Mrs. E. E. Peterson of Texarkana, State president of 
Colored Work and National superintendent of Thurman Union. 

Mrs. Annie M. Palmer of Iowa. National organizer, held the 
first W. C. T. U. Evangelistic Convention in Dallas ever held by 
a woman. 

To Grandma Sweeney belongs the honor of being the first 
woman who ever stood before a Texas audience to plead for 
prohibition. This was in Panola County in 1877. 

In 1884 Miss Elizabeth March, the accomplished principal of 
Whitesboro Academy, through Mrs. Beauchamp, became inter- 
ested in the W. C. T. U. work. So much did she feel the voice 
of the Lord calling her, that she resigned a position paying 
$60 a month and entered the W. C. T. U. as State superintendent 
of the Scientific Temperance Instruction Department for nothing. 
When the Legislature met she asked for a law requiring instruc- 
tion in the public schools on alcoholics and narcotics, to be re- 



50 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

fused. Woman-like, she quietly went to work creating sentiment 
and in 1893 Mrs. Stoddard, her successor in this department, 
secured the law. 

In 1888 the State Convention was held in Fort Worth. It was 
well attended and the reports were good. This was in many re- 
spects an important convention. New women were brought into 
the work and everything was running smoothly. Mrs. Beauchamp 
was re-elected president, but resigned in favor of Mrs. S. C. Ache- 
son. This convention adopted a woman's suffrage resolution 
as follows: 

. "Whereas, we believe the ballot in the hand of women is 
the surest and shortest way to prohibition. 

' "Resolved That we believe in woman's vote and thank God 
for its grand success in Kansas and other States." 

A franchise department was added and Mrs. E. A. Fry of San 
Antonio, a Southern woman, was made Superintendent and South- 
ern women have filled this office ever since. 

Mrs. Beauchamp's administration closed with a paid-up mem- 
bership of 1600 and about one hundred working unions. Many 
had become discouraged, because of the defeat in 1887, and 
others dropped out because of the suffrage plank. 

Mrs. Acheson's Administration (1888-91) — Mrs. Acheson was 
well fitted by birth, education, position and disposition for this 
responsible trust. In all her itineraries, she paid her own ex- 
penses. Churches began to open their doors to the cause, and 
it was an innovation to see a beautifully dressed Presbyterian 
lady of the old school, on a platform pleading for pure homes and 
a clean nation. 

The State convention convened in Denison in 1889, but Mn. 
Acheson being ill, Mrs. S. L. Trumbull of Sherman presided. 
Only twenty-six unions reported. 

In 1890 the State convention met in San Antonio. Mrs. Ache- 
son was re-elected president, but her health soon began to fail. 
She presided over the Tyler State convention in 1891, but re- 
fused re-election, and Mrs. Helen M. Stoddard was elected State 
president. 

After Mrs. Acheson's death the Denison women inspired by 
Mrs. G. W. McNelan, an old crusader, and for many years presi- 
dent of Grayson County W. C. T. U., erected a beautiful drinking 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 51 

fountain to Mrs. Acheson's memory on a prominent corner in 
that city. 

There is in the city of Chicago an immense eleven-story build- 
ing known as the "Woman's Temple, " erected by the W. C. T. U. 
On the walls of the entrance into "Willard Hall" many names are 
carved in large gold letters. Among these are the names of Mrs. 
Beauchamp, Mrs. Acheson and Mrs. Stoddard. 

Mrs. Stoddard's Administration (1891-1907) — Resigning her po- 
sition as teacher in Fort Worth University, Mrs. Stoddard ad- 
dressed herself with quiet vigor to her new work. 

Realizing that permanent results could best be secured by 
crystallizing public sentiment into law, she made that the dis- 
tinguishing characteristic of her administration, and aided ma- 
terially in securing the enactment of the following laws: 

The law raising the age of protection from 12 to 15 years, 1895. 

Scientific temperance instruction law, 1893. 

Anti-cigarette law, 1899. 

Anti-cocaine law, 1901. 

College of Industrial Arts bill, 1901. 

The anti-slot machine law. 

The pure food law. 

Anti-child labor law. 

Anti-card playing law. 

Anti-C. O. D. express liquor shipment law. 

She aided materially in defeating the infamous "Willacy bill." 

The Texas W. C. T. U. has carried on with varying degrees 
of success about twenty-five departments of the National Union. 
The greatest activity and the most marked results seem to 
have been attained in the departments of legislation, the press, 
medal contests, mothers' meetings, anti-narcotics and unfer- 
mented wine for communion. 

The W. C. T. U. has helped to make the sentiment against fer- 
mented wine for communion so strong that few Texas churches 
now use alcoholic wine. 

In 1901 the National Convention met at Fort Worth, Texas. 
At this convention, Texas' press superintendent, Miss Fannie L. 
Armstrong, was awarded the Reporter's Star for the best re- 
port in the United States. 



52 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

In the National convention, States that gain 500 new mem- 
bers participate in Jubilee Night, and Texas has frequently been 
on the program. 

Mrs. Stoddard presided for the last time at the convention in 
Marshall, 1906. At this convention she was the recipient of three 
dozen souvenir silver spoons from as many unions, in honor of 
the twenty-fifth anniversary of Texas W. C. T. U. 

Admonished by her physician that she must rest, she soon 
after the convention surrendered the reins of administration to 
Mrs. Mattie R. Turner, vice-president at large, and moved to 
California. 

Mrs. Turner's Administration, (1906-8) — Mrs. Mattie R. Turner 
was the first native Texan to hold the office of president. She 
had been vice-presi*dent at large under Mrs. Stoddard and filled 
out the unexpired term of 1906-7, when Mrs. Stoddard resigned. 

In 1907 the State convention met at Hempstead and Mrs. 
Turner was elected president. 

After a few months of earnest work, including a strenuous 
campaign in her home city of Fort Worth, her health failed, and 
Mrs. J. B. Ammerman, vice-president at large, filled out the term 
of 1907-8. As evidence of Mrs. Turner's interest in the move- 
ment for State-wide prohibition, she offered two handsome silk 
banners suitably inscribed to be awarded to the counties securing 
the largest percentage of their qualified voters on the submission 
petition. These were awarded on Prohibition Day at the Dallas 
Fair, 1908, to Ellis and Motley Counties. 

Mrs. Ammerman's Administration (1907-9) — Filling out Mrs. 
Turner's term till the convention met in Ennis, 1908, Mrs. J. B. 
Ammerman was chosen as president, with Miss Hattie Henderson 
vice-president at large. She proved a leader whom Texas women 
gladly followed and much was done in a quiet way in the various 
departments. 

It is worthy of note that since the organization of the Texas 
Local Option Association in 1903 it has not been so necessary 
for the W. C. T. U. to take such an active hand as formerly 
in securing temperance legislation, as the men have largely re- 
lieved them of that task. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 53 

i . 

The convention met at Marlin in October, 1909, and Mrs. 
Ammerman declining re-election, Mrs. Nannie W. Curtis of Sher- 
man, was elected president. 

Mrs. Curtis' Administration (1909 ) — Mrs. Curtis brings to 

the executive office an indomitable energy and a ripe experience 
as a temperance lecturer of rare gifts, and the W. C. T. U. should 
experience a revival in all departments throughout the State. 
This organization is expected to be one of the most potent allies 
of the Anti-Saloon League, which is leading in the pending 
movement for the banishment of the liquor traffic from all Texas. 

The present officers of the State W. C. T. U. are: 

President, Mrs. Nannie W. Curtis, Waco. 

Vice-president at large, Mrs. J. B. Ammerman, Fort Worth. 

Recording secretary, Mrs. F. E. Hailey, Houston. 

Corresponding secretary, Mrs. Emma Goff, Denison. 

Treasurer, Miss Lula Reed, Beaumont. 

Medal contest superintendent, Mrs. J. T. Alder, Denison. 

State Y. secretary, Mrs. W. D. Mihils, Houston. 

L. T. L. Secretary, Miss Harriet Henderson, Dallas. 

Moral Suasion Temperance Work Needed.— -Whenever any 
moral reform outruns the development of sustaining public senti- 
ment, such reform is doomed to suffer a re-action. The temper- 
ance reform, while possessing remarkable vitality, is no excep- 
tion to this rule. When Texas shall decree the banishment of 
the liquor traffic from her borders, all the power of organized 
liquordom will be brought to bear upon the State to create a 
re-action. Our danger in Texas now is that in pressing the legal 
and political phases of the temperance reform, we are likely to 
overlook too much the educational work necessary to promote a 
corresponding growth of sentiment to sustain our advance, and 
prevent a disastrous re-action. We may leave it almost entirely 
now to the politicians to push the legal and political phases of the 
movement. Let the W. C. T, U., the Sunday Schools, the 
churches and all who have religion, so to speak, on the temper- 
ance question, redouble their energies in impressing upon the 
individual conscience the obligation of personal temperance as a 
duty due to one's self and to others. On the back cover of this 
book are helpful suggestions. 



54 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE PROHIBITION PARTY. 

Entrance Into Texas. — The Prohibition party as a National 
organization was introduced into Texas by Col. E. L. Dohoney of 
Paris. In response to a call issued by him, a convention 
of Prohibitionists was held in Fort Worth Sept. 8, 1884, which 
put out a Presidential electoral ticket for St. John. This ticket 
polled 3500 votes without any canvass being made in its behalf, 
there being no State organization at the time to make a canvass. 

State Organization Formed. — The Prohibition Party of Texas 
was organized at Dallas two years later. The incidents leading 
to its organization are of unusual interest. For some years there 
had been published at Gatesville, Texas, with Dr. J. B. Cranfill 
as editor, the Gatesville Advance. As early as 1883 this paper 
became widely known as an advocate of temperance and prohi- 
bition. Dr. Cranfill ; whose father was a Confederate soldier, 
and who is himself a native of Parker County, Texas, was born 
and bred a Democrat. He was a very ardent advocate of the 
Democratic party, and believed that the party of his fathers 
should stand for everything good in government. So believing, 
he persistently advocated the principle of prohibition as a Demo- 
cratic doctrine. As a delegate from Coryell County to the Demo- 
cratic State convention which met in Houston, 1884, he intro- 
duced a resolution pledging the party to submit a prohibition 
constitutional amendment to a popular vote. A German dele- 
gate from San Antonio immediately moved that the resolution 
be laid on the table, and the mover of the resolution under the 
table. Amid hurrahs and laughter the resolution was lost. When 
the time came for the election of delegates to the Democratic 
State convention in 1886, Dr. Cranfill offered himself as a dele- 
gate, but was defeated by the whiskey men of Gatesville and 
others by a narrow vote, several negroes having been corralled, 
and having voted in the Democratic primary as Democrats 
against his election. Although defeated as delegate Dr. Cran- 
fill attended the 1886 convention, which met at Galveston. Over- 
tures were made to a number of leading prohibition Democrats 
asking them to introduce a prohibition resolution in that conven- 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 55 

tion, but in the language of scripture they "all with the one ac- 
cord began to make excuse." 

First State Prohibition Convention. — Dr. Cranfill returned from 
the convention convinced that the Democratic party of Texas 
was, ?o thoroughly aligned with the liquor interests that there 
was no hope of securing prohibition through that agency. He 
therefore called the first State Prohibition Convention that ever 
assembled in Texas, which convened at Dallas Sept. 7, 1886. That 
convention, after adopting a ringing platform demanding sub- 
mission and advocating prohibition in State and Nation, nomi- 
nated E. L. Dohoney for Governor, and Dr. F. E. Yoakum, brother 
of the famous railroad man, candidate for Lieutenant Governor. 
Dr. Cranfill was himself chosen chairman of the executive com- 
mittee, and when the votes were counted it was found that the 
Prohibition party had polled 19,180 votes. 

Secured Submission in 1887. — This remarkable development of 
Prohibition party sentiment in the State aroused the fears of the 
leaders of the democratic party, and in the following spring the 
Texas Legislature submitted a prohibition constitutional amende 
ment to a popular vote, the election being held Aug. 4, 1887. 
Prohibition was defeated by over 90,000 in the State. Every 
election since 1886 the Prohibition party has nominated its State 
ticket and has stood up in defense of the doctrine of State and 
National prohibition which called it into being. 

Present (1910) Organization. — In the present organization of 
the party E. H. Conibear is State chairman, and P. F. Paige is 
State secretary. Headquarters of the party have been main- 
tained in Dallas for a number of years and there has scarcely 
been a time during its history that the party has not been ac- 
tively in the field with its speakers and literature seeking to 
make sentiment for the prohibition reform. Dr. J. B. Cranfill, 
the organizer of the party in Texas, is still a member of the 
State Central Committee. 

The Prohibition Party has not achieved political success to 
speak of" in Texas. Its vote for Governor in 1908 was only 432 
and its vote for President was but 1832. Yet it has been an im- 
portant factor in developing the temperance and prohibition sen- 
timent in the State upon which the pending campaign for State- 
wide prohibition must depend for ultimate success. 



56 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 




TEXAS PROHIBITION PARTY LEADERS 

1, Dr. J. B. Cranfill, Founder; 2, P. F. Paige, Secretary; 3, E. H. Conebear, Chairman; 
4, Rev. John Gilbert Adams, Lecturer; 5, Rev. John Carney, "The Irish Brick," 
Lecturer. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 57 

CHAPTER VIM. 
TEXAS LOCAL OPTION ASSOCIATION. 

Grayson County Pros Take Initiative. — On March 7, 1903, local 
option was adopted in Grayson County by a majority of 575. 
Grayson County is the most populous dry county in Texas, and 
the liquor traffic being strongly entrenched in the cities of Deni- 
son and Sherman, made a desperate fight to thwart the popular 
will as expressed at the ballot box. By outrageous judicial ob- 
structions extending to the Supreme Court of the United States, 
the liquorites prevented the law from going into effect for nearly 
a. year. 

Thoroughly awakened to the necessity for organization among 
the friends of civic righteousness as a preparation for the con- 
flict with the liquor-law milliners, the Prohibition Executive 
Committee of Grayson County issued an address to the people 
of Texas, asking for a consultation of the friends of prohibition 
from all over the State. In that address appeared the following 
language: 

'The people of Texas may as well open their eyes to the 
fact that the organized liquor traffic, with unlimited capital and 
the shrewdest and most unscrupulous manipulators that money 
can hire, are entering upon a campaign for the destruction of 
the local option law of Texas at the next session of our Legis- 
lature." 

. About the same time the Grayson County address was pub- 
lished, Judge C. H. Jenkins of Brownwood, without knowing of 
the action in Grayson, addressed a letter to prominent prohi- 
bitionists in various parts of the State urging the necessity of a 
State organization. 

Preliminary Meeting at Dallas. — The Grayson County address 
was published July 13, 1903. The following call was the result: 

Dear Sir: A number of prominent prohibitionists being in 
Dallas on Oct. 10 in attendance at the Fair, and to hear the argu- 
ment in the Grayson County injunction case, got together and 
temporarily organized, with the view of perfecting a State or- 
ganization. At this meeting the following resolution was 
adopted: 



58 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

"Resolved, That we invite the local optionists of each county 
in Texas to send one or more representatives to a meeting to be 
held in Dallas, Texas, on Nov. 25, 1903, for the purpose of or- 
ganizing the Texas Local Option Association, to be non-partisan 
in politics and to promote the cause of local option in Texas." 

The undersigned were appointed as a committee to give no- 
tice of this action. You are therefore requested to at once 
bring this matter before the local optionists of your county, so 
that they may take steps to be represented at said meeting. 

The antis perfected their State organization at San Antonio 
on Oct. 21, and it behooves the local optionists of Texas to take 
immediate action for better co-operation, in order that we may 
maintain our ground as well as win new victories. 

Please notify Dr. G. C. Rankin, secretary, Dallas, Texas, as 
soon as your representatives are selected. 

H. A. IVY, Sherman, 

C. H. JENKINS, Brownwood, 

Committee. 

State Organization Formed. — In response to this call the 
friends of civic righteousness from various parts of Texas, met 
in the City Hall, Dallas, Texas, Nov. 25, 1903. 

Judge C. H. Jenkins of Brownwood, was elected chairman and 
R. C. Dial of Greenville, secretary. The following extract from 
the constitution discloses the plans and purposes of the organiza- 
tion perfected at that meeting. 

"The purpose of this organization is to associate the local 
option organizations now existing and hereafter to be organized 
in Texas in a State organization to the end that a campaign of 
education as to the evils of the liquor traffic may be more ef- 
fectually and economically carried on in Texas, and that the 
public may be fully aroused, so as to demand of officials a rigid 
enforcement of the local option laws of this State in counties 
and districts where local- option has been adopted by a vote of the 
people and also to prevent the repeal or emasculation of our pres- 
ent local option law and to secure the passage of such addi- 
tional amendments as shall effectually prevent the evasion of 
the prohibitory liquor laws in any manner or guise whatsoever 
where local option has been adopted. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 59 

"It is expressly understood" and here declared that this organ- 
ization is not a political party and that neither the State organi- 
zation nor any county local option organization composing a part 
of this State organization will at any time make any nomina- 
tion for any office." 

First Officers. — Officers of the association were elected as 
follows: 

President, H. H. Halsell, Decatur. 

Treasurer, G. W. Owens, Dallas. 

Secretary, H. A. Ivy, Sherman. 

The direction of the work of the association was entrusted to 
an executive committee consisting of the three officers named, 
together with G. C. Rankin and C. H. Jenkins. Rev. Granville 
Jones was chosen State organizer. The executive committee 
issued an address to the citizens of Texas, in which the follow- 
ing significant language appeared: 

"Nothing but a compact organization of patriotic believers 
in civic righteousness throughout the State will hold the terri- 
tory lately reclaimed from rum tyranny and free other territory 
from the curse of the saloon and insure the enforcement of the 
law." 

Liquorites' Masked Assault on the Law, — The liquorites' covert 
attack upon the local option law at this time was masked as a 
demand for the "equalization of the law." As specimens of the 
pro literature of the period the address of the executive commit- 
tee to Texas Democrats and the secretary's reply to the "equali- 
zation" deinand of the liquorites are given as Appendix 1 hereto. 

Effort to Liquorize the Democracy. — It soon became apparent 
that the organized liquor forces were planning to capture the ap- 
proaching Democratic convention and commit the organization 
to the protection of the liquor traffic. To assist in forestalling 
this effort of the liquorites the following warning appeal was 
mailed to county chairmen and to leading prohibitionists through- 
out the State: 

Dear Sir: It is important that we have as large an attendance 
as possible of influential local option Democrats at Houston at 
the State convention to meet next Tuesday, Aug. 2 (1904). I 
trust you will see that as many as possible of the local option 



60 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

Democrats, especially those who are delegates from your county, 
attend. 

If Mr. Willacy and his associates try to commit the party by 
platform expression to the interests of the liquor traffic, it is 
important that our people be there in force and prepared to de- 
feat such a scheme to make the Democratic party in Texas a tool 
of the booze trade. 

Kindly see that your county is strongly represented. "Eter- 
nal vigilance is the price of freedom" from rum-ruled politics. 

Yours for clean government, 

H. A. IVY, 
Secretary Texas Local Option Association. 

The Democratic convention met at Houston Aug. 2, 1904. The 
liquorites were on hand with their demand for a platform declara- 
tion in favor of Willacyizing the local option law. John H. Reagan 
was chairman of the platform committee and the liquorites got 
cold comfort. Their little "equalization" plank did not even get 
before the convention, and the rummies' effort to stab the local 
option law through the Democratic party was a failure. 

Futile Effort to Create Reaction. — The liquor organization next 
undertook to create a reaction by bringing on local option elec- 
tions in dry counties where there was a large vagrant element or 
a large negro and foreign-born population. The anti-campaigns 
were liberally financed from the saloon protection fund, the State 
Liquor Dealers' disbursing agent usually being in evidence in the 
most important counties. As noted elsewhere in this volume, 
they succeeded during the five years from 1903-1908 in preventing 
the pros from making much net progress. On the other hand, 
however, the local optionists defeated the rummies' effort to 
emasculate the law, won as many new counties as the liquorites 
recaptured, and many precincts besides, and secured the enact- 
ment of a number of collateral statutes which greatly facilitate 
the enforcement of the local option law, and thereby laid an en- 
during foundation for an increasing popularity of local prohibi- 
tion that sure enough prohibits. 

Merged Into Anti-Saloon League. — Thus the State Local Op- 
tion Association, without funds and with very slight organization, 
accomplished its mission in preserving the local option law, waged 
a campaign of education that started the trend very perceptibly 
proward again during 1908, when Polk and Lampasas Counties 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



61 



returned to the pro column and took the initiative in inaugurat- 
ing the pending campaign for Statewide prohibition. 

Its last general address was the call for a State-wide prohibi- 
tion conference as follows: 

CALL FOR STATEWIDE PROHIBITION CONFERENCE 



OFFICERS: 

H H HALSELL. Decatur. Pre 
W B ABNEY. Lwwit. V-Pr. 
H A. IVY Sherman. SecTrea 



Texas Must Close the 
Saloons Because— 



I. They cannot ru 
making drunkards. 



Ill The welfare of 


Texa 


hornet demandi that the home' 


arch enemy— the Public 


Dram 


•hop-shall meet it. dea 


hfrorr 


the ballot - bullets of 


Texa 


Home Defenders. 




IV Good Government 


nT« 


si demands the ban 


>hmen 


from its borders of the 


world' 


greatest Crime - Breed 




Criminals' Rendezvous 


- Eh 


liquor saloon with its Ga 


mblm 


Adjunct and Scarlet Annex. 



interposes the greatest existing 
obstacles to the Reign of Right- 
eousness on Earth, hence every 
loyal Child of the King is bound 



EXECUTIVE OOMMITTBK 

H H. HALSELL, 
G. C. RAN :iN. R. C. DIAL 

L. E. McCORMICK. H. A. IVY 



Qivxtis *Lixtixl ©pitmt ^sstttmtitttx 

^nrpttBi 1 : (Eo ,Mclp ^fitee (Eexna nf ^Citjuttr ^Pomi«atic« 

©Hire of ^Srrrrtnrj-^rcnsyrtr, Sherman, Itxat. 



Dear Sir: 

At a meeting of our Executive Committee at Dal- 
las, December 26th, it was decided that ''inasmuch as a 
State Campaign for Constitutional Prohibi tion is impending , 
we urge the friends of prohibition throughout Texas to 
send one or more representative loyal pros from their re- 
spective counties to a conference at First Methodist Church , 
Dallas, Texas, January 16th,, 1908, 10 A. M. to 4 P M., to 
decide upon judicious methods for handling the preparatory 
stages of the movement. 

I am trusting that you will attend this meeting if 
possible, and at all events, see that your county is prop- 
erly represented. 

As the time is so short, please answer this in 
person at Dallas or through representatives from your 
county. We are depending on YOU. 

Fraternally , 




Secretary. 



62 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

In the closing months of the year 1908, the Local Option As- 
sociation quietly resigned the non-partisan campaign against the 
rum power in Texas into the hands of the Anti-Saloon League, 
which organization operates upon non-partisan lines, as did the 
Local Option Association. 

The Association's Silent Pulverizers — The Texas Local Option 
Association did its most effective work in counseling local com- 
mittees as to practical methods of conducting local option cam- 
paigns, in helping them secure capable organizers and campaign- 
ers, and in supplying them with vote-winning literature. 

The Association's series of "silent pulverizers" embraced the 
following topics: 

1. Liquor Revenue Never Lowers Taxes. 

2. Proof that Prohibition Lessens Crime. 

3. The Best Saloon Is the Worst. 

4. Prohibition Promotes Prosperity. 

5. Liquor License a Crime. 

6. Conserving Texas Resources. 

Two of these will be permanently applicable to the war on 
the liquor traffic in Texas, and are therefore given as appendices 
to this volume, namely: 

Liquor License a Crime, Appendix 2. 

Conserving Texas' Resources, Appendix 3. 

TEXAS TAX PAYERS AND WAGE EARNERS' REAL BURDEN 

Why should Texas continue to squander millions annually 
supporting a few thousand non-producing saloon sports, and car- 
ing for their victims? 

The liquor saloon, which lives upon the fruits of productive 
industry, does no more to increase the general prosperity than 
ticks that live upon the life-blood of a Texas cow make her give 
more milk. The sensible Texans, who care more for their cows 
than they do for the ticks that thrive upon the cows' blood, ex- 
terminate the ticks. Why should not Texans, who care more foi 
Texas than they do for the saloons that sap her industrial vital- 
ity, help exterminate the saloons? 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



63 




OFFICIAL FAMILY, TEXAS ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 

1, Sterling P. Strong, State Supt.; 2, Rev. Jesse P. Sewell, Dist. Supt.; 3, Rev. G. W. 
Eichelberger, D. D., Dist. Supt.: 4. Rev. J. A. Maples, Dist. Supt.; 5, Rev.Arthur W, 
Jones, Publicity Supt.; 6, Rev. W. C. Dunn, Dist. Supt.; 7, Rev. G. A. Faris, V.- 
Pres.; 8, Rev. B. F. Riley, Past State Supt.; 9, Rev. J. T. McClure, Sec.-Treas. 



64 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



CHAPTER IX. 
ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE. 

An effort was made in 1902 to introduce the Anti-Saloon 
League into Texas, but without success. In 1907 it again entered 
the State. A State organization was effected under the direction 
of Rev. B. F. Riley, with headquarters at Dallas, Texas, which 
have been maintained ever since. Dr. Riley resigned the super- 
intendency toward the close of 1908 and was succeeded by Ster- 
ling P. Strong, the present State superintendent of the League. 

The League's plan of work is in the main the same as that 
of the Local Option Association, but presents a superior plan of 
organization for State-wide work. Hence the local optionists, 
who regarded State-wide prohibition as the ultimate goal of 
local option, quite naturally affiliated with the League in the non- 
partisan fight for a saloonless Texas, which by common consent 
of the friends of civic righteousness throughout the State is being 
led by the Anti-Saloon League. 

The plan and purpose of the League are thus stated by its 
general superintendent, Rev. P. A. Baker: 

"The Anti-S'aloon League is not, strictly speaking, an organi- 
zation. It is what its name indicates — a League. It is a league 
of organizations. It is the federated church in action against 
the saloon. Its agents are of the church, and under all circum- 
stances loyal to the church. It has no interest apart from the 
church. It goes just as fast and just as far as the public senti- 
ment of the church will permit. It has not come to the king- 
dom simply to build a little local sentiment or to secure the 
passage of a few laws, nor yet to vote the saloons from a few 
hundred towns. These are mere incidents in its progress. It 
has come to solve the liquor problem." 
♦ 

"Good Fighting" for AM. — From Dr. Baker's statement, it will 

appear that all who favor the abolition of the liquor traffic, re- 
gardless of party or church affiliations and regardless of race, 
color or previous condition, are welcomed to participate in the 
war led by the League for the banishment of the rum traffic 
from Texas. Those wanting to enlist, have only to fall into line 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 65 

in the local prohibition organizations over against their own 
homes. There is "good fighting" all over Texas now, and almost 
every community is closely articulated with the State headquar- 
ters at Dallas. 

It is worthy of note also, that the League stresses the moral 
phase of prohibition as the all-overshadowing feature in its fight 
on the saloon; minifies, as far as practicable, the political phase 
of the question, and hence, its accredited representatives ought 
to find an open door into the meeting houses of all evangelical 
churches and the cordial co-operation of every soldier of the 
cross in the pending fight to free Texas from the domination 
of this arch enemy of righteousness. 

Present Officers (1910) — 

State superintendent, Hon. Sterling P. Strong, Dallas. 

Superintendent publicity bureau, Rev. A. W. Jones, Dallas. 

District superintendents: Rev. G. W. Eichelberger, Fort 
Worth; Rev. W. C. Dunn, Waco; Rev. Jesse P. Sewell, San An- 
gelo, and Rev. J. A. Maples, San Antonio. 

Board of Trustees. — Rev. J. W. Moore, Beaumont, president; 
Rev. G. A. Faris, Dallas, vice-president; Rev. J. T. McClure, Dal : 
las, secretary-treasurer; Dr. J. B. Gambrell, Dallas; Dr. George 
C. Rankin, Dallas; Arthur W. Jones, Dallas; Epps G. Knight, 
Dallas; Rev. George W. Truett, Dallas; Rev. J. Frank Smith, Dal- 
las; Rev. H. A. Boaz, Fort Worth; Rev. A. F. Sanderson, Houston; 
Judge D. E. Garrett, Houston; Judge D. E. Simmons, Houston; 
Hon. George W. Carroll, Beaumont; Judge William M. Pardue, 
San Antonio; Judge R. F. Spearman, Greenville; Rev. S. L. 
Rieves, D. D., McKinney. 

The League is really just getting its organization perfected 
throughout the State, ready to begin to make history, hence the 
shortness of this chapter, which is expected to lengthen rapidly. 



66 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



CHAPTER X. 

THE SALOON SAVERS' PLATFORM DISSECTED. 

The Texas Saloon Savers met in convention at Houston, 
Texas, Oct. 11, 1908, and promulgated a platform which is of 
special interest, because it is the last public deliverance of that 
school of liquid statesmen. That convention was thoroughly 
representative and embraced in its personnel as many distin- 
guished men as they can ever expect to get together again on 
Texas soil, and so it is reasonable to conclude that their plat- 
form is about the ablest that can be formulated in the interest 
of the saloon. 

They do one thing just right. They make the issue clear: 
The prohibitionists purpose to kill the saloon; the anti-pros aim 
to save the saloon. Hence the appropriateness of the title, "Sa- 
loon Savers." 

Below I give their very remarkable platform, followed by 
some running comments on significant expressions: 

The Saloon Savers' Latest Platform. 

"Whereas, There exists in the State of Texas an organized 
movement having for its p 1 rpose, by means of a constitutional 
amendment, to be followed by harsh and oppressive laws, the 
prohibition of the manufacture, gift, sale, exchange or transpor- 
tation of spirituous, vinous and malt liquors, except for medici- 
nal and sacramental purposes; and 

"Whereas, We regard the object sought by such organization 
-as inimical to the prosperity of this State and subversive of 
those principles by which a free people should be governed; 
therefore be it, by this convention, 

"Resolved, That we are unalterably opposed . to Statewide 
prohibition for the following reasons: 

"It is sumptuary and paternalistic legislation and involves an 
unwarranted interference with the personal happiness and liber- 
ties of the people and violates the well-established principles of 
government set forth in the great Declaration of Independence. 

"It stands for a standard of citizenship, morals and religion 
which inevitably leads to a union of Church and State. 

"It announces the heresy that those who are governed best 
are governed most, in direct conflict with the views of the found- 
ers of the Republic. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 67 



"We further contend that whatever evils result from the 
liquor can be better cured by proper regulation and by local 
laws, for the obvious reason that the unit of law enforcement 
under our form of State government is the county and precinct, 
and we assert that this has been demonstrated by a comparison 
of the two systems, where tried. 

"Its adoption would practically destroy the value of a vast 
amount of property invested in by our citizens with the sanction 
of our laws; would throw many wage-earners out of employment, 
and greatly decrease the value of our business in all lines, 
decrease our revenues and increase our property taxation. 

"Our State, by reason of our vast geographical extent and 
the distinct interests of our different sections, demands for her 
successful development the largest measure of local self-govern- 
ment. This necessity is recognized and provided for by our pres- 
ent Constitution. We denounce the threatened assault upon that 
Constitution by the prohibitionists as an attempt by tyranny 
of a numerical majority in one section to impose upon the citi- 
zens of other and different communities a system of laws for- 
eign to their tastes, inclinations and traditions, as subversive of 
local rights and Constitutional form, and promotive of that sec- 
tional bitterness which is unfortunately calculated to foster a 
sentiment favorable to the division of the State. 

"The experience of various States that have adopted and sub- 
sequently repealed State prohibition abundantly proves that it is 
a failure, and that it promotes intemperance and crime rather 
than decreases it. 

"Resolved, That no action of this convention shall be so con- 
strued as in any way intended to affect the vote of any member 
of the Thirty-first Legislature on the question of submission. 

"We, therefore, earnestly call upon the sovereign voters of 
Texas, irrespective of their political affiliation, regardless of their 
vocations, callings or professions, and whatever may be their 
religious beliefs, to assist our efforts to defeat all such proposed 
legislation attempted from any source or by any means, and to 
that end we urge the active and earnest co-operation of all true 
citizens.' , 

In essential ideas this is a revamp of the "True Blue" anti- 
pro platform of 1887. 

1. "We regard the object sought as inimical to the prosperity 
of the State," they say. 

"The object sought" is to stop four thousand liquor saloons in 
Texas from taking $40,000,000 a year from the people of Texas 
for liquid poison, which is worth less than nothing, and which 
unfits many of the purchasers for the performance of their parts 



68 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

as good citizens, embarrasses many industrial enterprises be- 
cause of drunken operatives, and brings want and rags and dire 
distress to innumerable Texas homes. Do sane and sober Texans 
agree with these statesmen that to stop such things will be ''in- 
imical to the prosperity" of any worthy interest in Texas? 

Experience has indeed demonstrated that closing the saloons 
is "inimical to the prosperity" of some things. Prohibition is 
"pizen" to the prosperity of the liquor seller, the gambler, the 
prostitution pariah, the dog-fight criminal lawyer and the elec- 
tion "fixer," and no others. Why should these distinguished 
statesmen be so worried about the prospect of prohibition mak- 
ing liquor selling, gambling, prostitution, criminal law practice 
and election "fixing" less profitable? Can it be possible that 
they are playing the role of hired mourners at a funeral? If 
they do not want to be understood as standing for the prosperity 
of these things, they would better quit talking in public about 
prohibition being "inimical to prosperity," because intelligent 
people now know that closing the vice-incubating liquor shops 
hurts no other business permanently, if at all. This is so well 
understood at the present day that a man who now contends that 
liquor saloons are essential to general prosperity impeaches his 
own intelligence or advertises himself as a colossal joker. 

One might as well venture to tell Texas stockman that ticks 
are necessary to make cows fat. Ticks are parasites that live 
upon the life-blood of the animal, but produce nothing for the 
animal's good. Liquor saloons occupy precisely the same rela- 
tion to the business community. They produce nothing for the 
enrichment of the community, but subsist wholly upon the fruits 
of local industries. The cow may give milk in spite of the ticks 
on her, but never on account of them; a town may prosper in 
spite of the saloons it nourishes, but never on account of them. 

Texas liquor saloons on an average take from the people 
approximately $10,000 a year each, and the people get from the 
saloons for license $750 each. The liquor the people get for 
their $10,000 is worth less than nothing to them. So far as it 
figures in the "prosperity' problem, it is a minus quantity. Then 
we have the spectacle of these brilliant financiers gravely tell- 
ing intelligent Texans they will be more prosperous if they con- 
tinue to give $40,000,000 a year, approximately to 4000 liquor 



RUM OX THE RUN IN TEXAS - 69 



dispensaries in the State for less than nothing. Verily, what 
jokers these saloon savers be! It would be more sensible to tell 
the people it would make them more prosperous to throw $40,- 
000,000 a year to the rabble in Texas cities each Christmas. A 
man who can't see that point ought to sober up or take head 
treatment. 

2. "It is sumptuary and paternalistic legislation." 
Shades of Xoah Webster! 

These jokers ought to know that most Texas people own dic- 
tionaries these days, and can learn the meaning of "sumptuary 
and paternalistic," and catch them in a clumsy bit of humor 
like this. Sumptuary (from sumptus — expense) means pertain- 
ing to expense, and a sumptuary law is a law regulating the ex- 
penses of individuals. Prohibition simply stops' men from selling 
alcoholic poison, and that no more regulates men's expenses 
than the law that stops men from making counterfeit money. 

Remotely, perhaps, prohibition may affect the rum seller's ex- 
pense account. It niay, indeed, force him to eat liver rather 
than porterhouse steak, and to buy less expensive diamonds for 
himself or less expensive millinery for his wife or mistress. In 
this sense every criminal law is sumptuary, because it stops 
the criminal's income and thereby curtails his expenditures. 
But is it the rum seller's personal expense account that these 
statesmen are tearing their hair about? If not, they owe an 
apology to the people of Texas for deliberately trying to deceive 
them. And prohibition is no more "paternalistic" than it is 
"sumptuary," Xoah Webster being judge. 

These jokers have tried to stand up a "sumptuary-paternal- 
istic" straw man to get to knock it down. But their straw man 
is too thin to stand. It reminds one of the joke about the beeves 
in war times that were so poor that when the soldiers went to 
kill them for beef they had to "hold them up to shoot them 
down." These fellows will have to hold their straw man up to 
knock it down, because it can not stand alone. 

3. "Unwarranted interference with the liberties of the 
people." 

The United States Supreme Court declares that "the right to 
sell liquor is not a right that inheres in citizenship." So, when 



70 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

the government stops men from selling liquor for the good of 
society, it no more invades the natural rights of the individuals 
than when it stops money sharks from robbing people by charg- 
ing 5 per cent a month interest on money. 

4. "Violates the principles of the Declaration of Independ- 
ence." 

Presumably they refer to the statement in that immortal 
document to the effect that it is the mission of a free govern- 
ment to protect its people in the exercise of their inalienable 
rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Liquor 
selling, which prohibition stops, is not one of the "inalienable 
rights" of the Declaration, the United States Supreme Court 
says. Hence prohibition, by stopping liquor selling, does not vio- 
late the essential principles of that "sheet anchor of our lib- 
erties." 

On the contrary, prohibition is necessary to preserve the in- 
alienable rights of life, liberty and happiness." A hundred thou- 
sand or more lose their lives in America every year because of 
drinking, fostered by the saloons. This government exists to 
protect life, and it i e derelict in its sacred duty until it sup- 
presses the liquor traffic, which is inherently and incurably the 
destroyer of life by wholesale. 

Hundreds of thousands are languishing in American prisons 
today, deprived of their liberty, because of drinking, fostered 
by the saloons. The United States Supreme Court says three- 
fourths of American crime is due to liquor. This government 
exists to preserve the liberty of its people, and it is derelict in 
its sacred duty until it destroys the liquor traffic, through which 
these thousands are deprived of their liberty. 

Bound to the thousands who annually go to prison and to 
drunkards' graves because of drink dispensed in the life-destroy- 
ing and liberty-curtailing saloons, are millions of defenseless 
women and children, whose happiness is destroyed by drinking 
fostered by the saloons. This government exists to preserve 
happiness, especially the happiness of the defenseless, and it is 
criminally derelict until it suppresses the liquor traffic which 
destroys the happiness of the inmates of innumerable American 
homes. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 71 

Nay, friends, the Declaration can no more be distorted into a 
shield to protect the liquor drunkard factories than it can be 
made to shield the counterfeiter, the smuggler and the usurer 
from the law's interference. 

5. "Leads to the union of Church and State." 

To what extremity these saloon savers must be reduced, 
when they must needs conjure up the ghost of a dead issue, 
buried over a hundred years ago, and its grave securely sealed 
by constitutional edict! If prohibition "leads to a union of 
Church and State," as they say, they ought to show us just one 
place in all America where it ever led to such a union to justify 
that statement. Rockwall County has been under prohibition 
for thirty-two years. Is the Church and the State any closer 
together in that county than they are in San Antonio, which has 
more saloons to the square inch than any other spot in Texas? 
Maine has had State prohibition for fifty-eight years. Can these 
jokers show that the Churches and the State have melted to- 
gether in the Pine Tree State? What a sorry spectacle these 
distinguished politicians present in their effort to make the peo- 
ple of this Commonwealth believe that unless we keep a solid 
line of drunkard factories wedged in between churches and the 
government, to hold them apart, they will surely fly together 
with a mighty impact and smash up our whole social fabric! If 
it were not for the slang, I should feel tempted to say to these 
distinguished jokers, "Quit yer kiddin'." 

But the people of Texas will not be deceived by their clumsy 
farce. It is not the union of Church and State these fellows 
fear, but the disunion of the saloon and State. Prohibition pro- 
poses to dissolve the now-existing unholy union of saloon and 
State, just as the founders of the Republic dissolved the union 
of Church and State a century and a- quarter ago, and forever 
•safeguarded the separation by ' constitutional inhibition. Their 
talk at this time about the "union of Church and State" is a 
century and a quarter out of date. The next fellow who stands 
on a Texas platform and introduces that ghost of Washington's 
day to scare the people away from prohibition, ought to dress 
himself in knee breeches with buckles, a powdered wig and other 
habilaments of colonial times, to enhance the humor of the farce* 



72 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



6. "It announces the heresy that those who are governed 
best are governed most. ,, 

On this I introduce a general denial, and challenge these 
jolly jokers "to show up or shut up." By whom was the an- 
nouncement made, gentlemen, and when? 

But while we wait for their answer, let it be remembered that 
the pistol "toter," the gambler, the white slave procurer, et al., 
all stoutly maintain, just like these saloonatics, that the country 
is governed too much, and do not forget that 

"No thief e'er felt the halter draw 
With good opinion of the law." 

7. "Liquor evils can be better cured by regulation and local 
laws." 

Now, if that is true of liquor selling, it is true of every prac- 
tice harmful to society, and "pistol toting," gambling, lotteries, 
vagrancy, forgery, counterfeiting, burglary, robbery, etc., "can 
be better cured by regulation and local laws." How would it do 
for Uncle Sam to local optionize polygamy and give the Mor- 
mons a chance to cure the evils of plural marriage by "local 
laws and regulation?" 

Are these "jolly jokers" ready to advocate the application of 
their "local" plan to other forms of conduct found to be harmful 
to society in general, and have the State laws repealed and local 
option laws substituted in their places? 

Are they ready to have horse stealing local optionized and 
give the horse thieves a chance to colonize in some favored neck 
of the woods, vote the horse stealing law out of their precinct, 
and then steal all of the thoroughbreds for a hundred miles 
around? If not, why not? Horse stealing does less harm to so- 
ciety than liquor selling. Why favor the liquor selling, the 
greater source of injury, more than horse stealing, the less? 
If, as they say, the evils of liquor can better be cured by local 
laws and regulation, why can not the evils of horse stealing be 
better cured by local laws and regulation? 

Why do they acquiesce in the State law that prohibits the 
sale of tainted meat and then fill the air with lamentations over 
the prospect of a State law to prohibit the sale of alcohol drink? 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 73 

Why, gentlemen, do you want to favor the seller of bad drink 
more than the seller of bad meat? Why? 

But "curing the evils that result from liquor" is not that 
crowd's specialty. None of them, I believe, has ever been con- 
spicuous in the councils of temperance reform. Saving saloons 
is their long suit, and just now the saloons can better be saved 
by "local laws and regulation." Hence, as saloon savers, quite 
naturally, they are clamoring for that policy. 

8. "The unit of law enforcement in our form of State gov- 
ernment is the county and precinct.* 

Now, by the great horn spoon, which one is the unit? Unit 
means one. Both the county and the precinct can not be the 
unit. If the county is the unit, the precinct can only be a frac- 
tion of the unit. Did the State exist first and create the coun- 
ties, or did the counties exist first and create the State? Does 
not the State of Texas, through its Legislature, make new coun- 
ties at almost every biennial session? Haven't these saloon sav- 
ers really made themselves supremely ridiculous in their clumsy 
effort to say something favorable to their "home rule" plan of 
saloon protection? 

Does not every tyro in civil government know that under the 
American political system the State is the primary unit, which is 
subdivided into counties, and the counties into precincts, for 
the convenience of administration, not of precinct and county 
laws, as a rule, but of the State laws. Then, beginning again 
with the State unit, by a combination of thirteen such units the 
Union was first formed, and has been augmented by additions 
from time to time, until now "E Pluribus Unum" signifies s one 
Nation out of forty-six sovereign State units. The State is the 
sole sovereign authority for the exercise of police power within 
its borders for the protection of society, except in so far as the 
State may grant a modicum of such power to municipalities and 
counties by special laws. In the matter of enforcing the crimi- 
nal laws, the county government is but an arm of the State to 
execute the State laws within the county, and when the county 
fails in such execution of the State laws, the Governor, the sov- 
ereign State's chief law enforcement official, is under an oath- 
bound obligation to see that the State's laws are enforced, re- 



74 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

gardless of the dereliction of local officers. We have been hav- 
ing some rather striking illustrations of this State unit doctrine 
quite recently in Bexar and Galveston Counties. Do these jolly 
jokers need to be reminded that local executive officers get their 
official commissions from the Governor, who, by law, is made 
overseer of the administration of the State's laws in all counties? 
If so, let them hark back to last year, when Gov. Campbell held 
up the commissions of several South Texas officials, who had 
imbibed the county unit law enforcement heresy of these saloon 
savers, until those officers went up to Austin and learned the 
Texas way more perfectly from the Governor. Our courageous 
Chief Executive respects his oath-bound promise to all the peo- 
ple of the State to see that all the laws of the State are enforced 
in all parts of the State, if it has to be done with the militia of 
the State. 

Do these jokers really believe that the people of Texas are so 
ignorant as not to know that all indictments, even for violating 
the local option law, run "in the name of the State of Texas," 
and not in the name of Peanut Precinct, or of Collin County, in 
which the local option law may prevail by local vote? 

Really, is it not clear that this county unit theory is an in- 
vention of these saloon savers for use in trying to save the crimi- 
nal saloon's neck from the hangman's noose a little longer? 

9. "We assert that it has been demonstrated by comparison 
of the two systems where tried that local laws and regulation 
are better cure for liquor evils than State prohibition." 

I could submit here a mass of testimony that would convince 
anything except a liquor-embalmed mummy that the reverse of 
their assertion is true. But space forbids. Only a hasty pass- 
ing reference can be indulged to show that the people in States 
where prohibition has had even half a chance prove that they 
think it is a great improvement over local option by retaining 
the State law. Kansas and Maine are the two States that have 
tried State prohibition long enough to satisfy all fair-minded 
citizens of the advantages of the law. With all the power of all 
organized liquordom brought to bear on those States to make 
the law a failure, the /people cling to State prohibition now with 
greater tenacity than ever. I submit that the citizens of Maine 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 75 

and Kansas, living under State prohibition laws in those States, 
are better judges than these Texas saloon savers as to which of 
the two systems is the better ''cure for liquor evils," and I am 
willing to leave the verdict to the reader without further argu- 
ment. 

10. Prohibition, they say, "Would practically destroy the 
value of property invested in with the sanction of the law." 

There is not a liquor seller nor a liquor maker in Texas who 
did not make his investment with notice that the State reserved 
the right to cancel his permit and put him out of the liquor busi- 
ness any time that the public welfare demanded it. They in- 
vested in the liquor business because of the opportunity afforded 
for easy money, and they can not justly complain if Texas can- 
cels their permits without notice and flings back to them their 
blood money, just as Judas threw down the thirty pieces of sil- 
ver at the feet of the chief priest who bribed him to betray his 
Lord. 

But it will not "destroy" such investments. By exercising 
just ordinary foresight, Texas liquor dealers will be able to dis- 
pose of their stocks of poison before closing day can come under 
State prohibition when adopted, and the houses and furniture 
can be used in other linees of business in which the liquor s*. lers 
and the liquor makers may embark. 

12. "It would throw many wage-earners out of employment." 

Yes, it might, but it will be more likely to put five times as 
many wage-earners into employment. The capital now invested 
in liquor selling and liquor making, if invested in legitimate busi- 
ness would employ five timees as many wage-earners as the 
liquor business employs. This is proved by the last government 
report, which shows that: 

The boot and shoe manufacturers employed one person to 
each $675 invested in the industry: 

The hosiery and knit goods manufacturers employed one per- 
son to each $950 invested in the industry. 

The cotton goods manufacturers employed one person to each 
$1,522 invested in the industry. 



76 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

The woolen goods manufacturers employed one person to 
each $1,749 invested in the industry. 

The slaughter and packing industry employed one person to 
each $2,402 invested in the industry. 

The flour and grist mills employed one person to each $5,102 
invested in the industry. 

The manufacturers of liquor employed one person to each 
$8,688 invested in the industry. 

This ought to make it clear to any unprejudiced mind that, 
instead of putting men out of employment, State prohibition will 
put a vast army of men into employment. This, of course, as- 
sumes that the capital now invested in the liquor business will 
be, when that business is abolished, re-invested in factories and 
other industrial and commercial enterprises that will manufac- 
ture and sell things that help people rather than hurt them. I 
submit that it is reasonable to expect that such will be the re- 
sult, considering the innumerable opportunities in Texas for 
profitable investment of capital. 

And herein is a suggestion to the organized Commercial Sec- 
retaries of Texas. Let them join with the prohibitionists and 
help get the millions now invested in liquor making and liquor 
selling in Texas invested in industrial and commercial enter- 
prises that will employ five times as many wage earners as the 
liquor business employs and help save the $40,000,000 now annu- 
ally wasted for dring in Texas, so it can go into better homes 
and better living for the inmates of Texas homes, and imperial 
Texas will become a paradise of ha/ppy homes and will strike a 
double quick-step in her march of progress toward a glorious 
destiny. Yes, gentlemen, the dollar, at least the Clean dollar, 
is on the pro side of the question, when sanely considered. 

13. "It will greatly decrease the value of our business in all 
lines, decrease our revenues, and increase our property taxa- 
tion." 

See paragraph 1, this chapter, on "Inimical to Business." 

It is easily proved by a comparison of current tax rates in 

wet and dry counties in Texas that liquor revenue does not 

lower property taxes and that the loss of liquor revenue from 

the adoption of prohibition does not increase property taxes. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 77 

Dallas County, wet, for 1909 had a county tax rate of 37^ cents 
on $100 valuation, while Collin County, dry, adjoining Dallas, had 
a rate of only 19 ^ cents; Harris County, wet, had a rate of 45 
cents, while Grayson County, dry, every whit as progressive as 
Harris, had a rate of only 27 cents; Bexar County, wet, had a 
rate of 35 cents, while Fannin County, dry, had a rate of 30 
cents. This ought to satisfy any unbiased mind that county 
prohibition does not increase county taxes, and by parity of rea- 
soning, State prohibition will not raise State taxes, as these sa- 
loon savers predict. 

Here is what the Bank Commissioner of Kansas says of that 
prohibition State: 

"I challenge any State in the Union to show as great an in- 
crease in wealth and along all lines that make States, common- 
wealths and Nations great. The total deposits of State and Na- 
tional banks March 16, 1909, were $181,708,891. The per capita 
had increased to the unprecedented sum of $113.56, an increase 
of $43.67 per capita. July 1, 1909, shows 800 State banks and 208 
National banks — -1008 of the most sound, solvent, safe, best man- 
, aged and operated banks in America. The population at this 
time, 1909, is estimated at over 1,000,000. 

"The last clearings reported show an increase of 20.6 per 
cent over those of the corresponding date of 1908. The total 
was $41,537,000." 

Does that look like prohibition had "decreased the business 
in all lines and reduced the revenues" of Kansas? 

14. "Our State demands for her successful development the 
largest measure of local self-government." 

"Local self-government" is all right for local matters, such as 
street paving, water and light systems, public schools and other 
things of strictly local interest, but it is a perversion of the 
"home rule" doctrine to apply it to a matter of Statewide inter- 
est such as the liquor traffic. In the very nature of things the 
liquor traffic is not and can not be made a matter of purely local 
concern. It is not possible to confine the evil effects of the 
traffic to the locality in which the saloons are located. For in- 
stance, a saloon located in Dallas with a license to sell liquor 
on a lot 25 by 100 feet, is a training school for drunkards, va- 



78 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

grants and criminals, which scatter over the adjacent dry terri- 
tory and make trouble for communities that have exercised their 
right of "local self-government" to rid themselves of these an- 
noying graduates of the drink schools. The "bottled-in-bond" 
and barreled-in-oak "personal liberty" of the saloonatics just will 
not stay at home. Dallas drunkenness can not be made to let 
Collin County soberness alone. Even if the drunkards, vagrants 
and criminals which they turn out could be corralled in the 
neighborhood that had voted to license the liquor vice dens, the 
liquor men themselves will not permit it to be a local question. 
They persistently push their sales into dry territory in defiance 
of local self-government. Hear a liquor organ, the Texas Re- 
public of San Antonio: 

"In a local option election held in Floresville on Thursday, 
the pros were victorious by a vote of 128 to 90. Express compa- 
nies can proceed without delay to increase their service to 
Floresville, and wholesale dealers in this city to arrange for an 
unlimited supply of jugs." 

This is a fair illustration of the contempt the liquorites have 
for "local self-government" when exercised to their detriment. 
Likely those saloonists voted out of Floresville will back off to 
the first wet spot and make a strenuous effort to sell to their old 
customers in unbroken packages in defiance of the "local self- 
government" that made them move. Evidently these saloonatics 
believe in "local self-government" only to the extent that it can 
be used to save the saloons. 

The liquor traffic is as much a Statewide question as any 
other profitable form of vicious conduct, and ought to be dealt 
with by Statewide laws the same as other hurtful practices. An 
application of local option to the liquor traffic with the arteries 
of commercial circulation active as they now are, is like rubbing 
one's elbow with liniment to cure the rheumatism, the germs of 
which are in the blood, and therefore likely to appear in some 
remote part of the body by tomorrow. To effect a cure, the 
rheumatism must be driven out of the system. So with the 
liquor. It must be driven out of the body politic — the State. 
See paragraph 7, this chapter, on "Local Laws." 

The liquorite idea of "local self-government," when pursued 
to a rational conclusion, reduces itself to an absurdity. They 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 79 

insist that a majority in the whole State ought not to force upon 
a minority in one section of the State, laws that are odious to 
them. In the same way they used to argue that a majority in 
the whole of a county ought not to force upon the county seat 
town the prohibition law which was not wanted by a majority in 
the town. With the same reason they could argue that a ma- 
jority in a precinct ought not to force this law on a part of the 
precinct to which it was objectionable. In like manner, and 
with equal reason, they might insist that all of the city ought 
not to force upon a certain block regulations hateful to the resi- 
dents of that block. So those living in a certain house in a 
block might protest against the people of the block voting upon 
them regulations "contrary to their tastes and inclinations," and 
finally an individual might rebel against the regulations of the 
house in which he lived and denounce them as an invasion of 
his "personal liberty" and declare that nobody had any right 
to impose restraints upon him that were "contrary to his tastes 
and inclinations," and that is anarchy. Thus the local self-gov- 
ernment theory of the liquorites in its last analysis would make 
each individual a law unto himself, abrogate all laws, and heads 
this whole bunch of saloon savers who advocate that doctrine 
straight for the anarchist camp. 

This crowd of saloon savers ought to break into a kinder- 
garten class in civil government somewhere long enough to 
learn that it is the primary purpose of government to "invade 
the personal liberty of individuals" so far as is necessary for the 
public welfare. And that catches the liquor seller along with 
the gambler, the counterfeiter, the usurer, the lottery promoter, 
the white slave procurer, and others who want to do things hurt- 
ful to society at large, because of the easy money in those things. 

15. Prohibition, they say, "Is promotive of sectional bitter- 
ness, calculated to foster sentiment favorable to the division of 
the State." 

Not much! The rummies may waste their time, if they like, 
dreaming about secession upon the advent of State prohibition, 
but sober Texans will not take them seriously. When the peo- 
ple decree the perpetual banishment of the crime-breeding liquor 
saloons, with their allied abominations, the gaps will be down 



80 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

on four sides of the State, and those who are not willing to be 
separated from the jag foundries will find no obstacles in the 
way of their departing with them, but these saloonatics imagine 
a vain thing if they think they will be able to take any part of 
Texas along with them. No, gentlemen, Texas soil, cemented 
together with hero blood, is destined to remain one and indi- 
visible, 

"Until the stars grow old, and the sun grows cold, 
And the leaves of the judgment book unfold." 

16. ''Experience proves that State prohibition is a failure 
and promotes intemperance and crime rather than decreases it." 

Not a bit of it. That statement does prove one thing, though, 
and that thing is that the fellow who wrote it had better inform 
himself about the real history of State prohibition before he 
essays to debate the issue with a prohibitionist of even mediocre 
ability, if he does not want to be exposed as an ignoramus. 

Maine has had State prohibition for fifty-eight years, and de- 
spite the strenuous efforts of organized liquordom to nullify the 
law and bring it into disrepute, the people cling to it more tena- 
ciously now than ever. Would they do this if it "promoted crime 
and intemperance," as these saloon savers say? 

Kansas has had State prohibition for almost a generation, 
and it is regarded as such a blessing that the Governor of the 
State in his Thanksgiving proclamation assigned that as one of 
the grounds for general thanksgiving on the part of the people 
of Kansas. The prohibition law is so strongly intrenched in the 
affections of the people of Kansas today, after a trial under dif- 
ficulties for twenty-eight years, that there is about as much pros- 
pect of its being repealed as there is that this bunch of saloon 
savers will sprout angel wings tomorrow and fly away to Para- 
dise. 

In the States that repealed it, State prohibition did not have 
a martyr's chance to prove its value before the liquor rebels ac- 
complished its overthrow. But, like many counties in Texas 
where the law was once repealed, when those States again adopt 
prohibition, as they certainly will, it will be good-bye for aye to 
John Barleycorn. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 81 



APPENDIX I. 

THE PASSING OF THE WILLACY IDEA. 

Inequalities of the Law on Snakes and Snake Medicine Venders. 
(By H. A. Ivy, 1904.) 

A few advocates for the liquor traffic are making a great noise 
in the land about what they term the "inequality" of the Texas 
local option law. Without admitting the "inequality" they charge 
upon this law in the interest of their client, I wish to remind 
them, as they seem to have forgotten it, that some things have 
never been regarded by the people and by the law of the land 
as entitled to equality with some other things, and likewise 
some persons have never been accorded equality with some other 
persons. For instance, men have never been willing to give the 
snake an equal chance with the chicken. From the garden of 
Eden down the sons of Eve have been inclined to kill snakes 
at sight, while they have protected and nurtured chickens, for 
the very good and sufficient reason that they had come to know 
the one as hurtful and the other as of use to humankind. For 
the same reason the wolf has never been given an equal chance 
with the lamb in the exercise of its right to life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness according to its natural instincts. For a 
like reason the mad dog has never been treated with the same 
favor as its brother, the useful canine. In like manner the law 
has always borne "unequally" upon the gambler, the counter- 
feiter and the thief as compared with other men in the pursuit 
of their chosen vocations. And even our high regard for the 
sacredness of religious freedom has not kept us from discrimi- 
nating against the polygamist in favor of the other religionists 
who are content to have but one wife. But why multiply illustra- 
tions? Even the simple-minded need only to be reminded that it 
is a universal rule of human judgment and of law that men pur- 
suing vocations which are sources of injury and evil to society 
are not entitled to "equality" with men engaged in pursuits that 
are beneficial to mankind. 

From the very infancy of the American Republic the liquor 
traffic has been classed with those vocations of men that are not 



82 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

entitled to "equality" with harmless and useful pursuits. Be- 
lieving with Justice Field of the United States Supreme Court 
that "a greater amount of crime and misery are attributable to the 
use of ardent, spirits obtained at the liquor saloons than to any 
other source," the people, through their law-makers, have laid 
upon the liquor traffic "unequal" burdens of taxation in the 
form of license fees, and have imposed upon it unusual bonds 
and drastic regulations and restrictions in an effort to repress 
and curtail its evil effects upon society. No citizen has the in- 
herent right to traffic in intoxicating liquors," says the United 
•States Supreme Court, as he has the inherent right to sell food 
and other things that minister to the comfort and well-being of 
mankind. 

No man has a right to sell liquor in this country till he buys 
such right from the government. When the people make up 
their minds, as they have done in North Texas counties, to 
quit selling such privileges, no wrong is done the liquor men, 
but they are expected to find fault with the law. "No man 
ever felt the halter draw but had a bad opinion of law." And 
they have money to fee lawyers to find fault with this law. 

So it is not strange that politicians will appear before the 
bar of public opinion in the interest of their client, the liquor 
traffic, and undertake by such specious logic to undermine the 
local option statute, which, in the hands of a democratic peo- 
ple, is proving so powerful for the overthrow of the beverage 
liquor traffic in Texas. But these advocates of the saloon may 
as well know that the people are on to their little game. And 
politicians who are tempted to seek preferment by rallying 
around the Willacy standard may as well know that men en- 
gaged in the man-killing, society-polluting, government-corrupt- 
ing liquor traffic, are, in their industrial capacity, no more en- 
titled in the estimation of our enlightened people to "equality" 
before the law as compared with men engaged in useful trades 
than are snakes, mad dogs, gambling and other things that, like 
the liquor traffic, are hurtful and only hurtful in their effects 
upon humankind. 

Statesmen who want to have an "equal" show before the 
law will have to stand for things that are useful rather than 
hurtful to society for whose protection laws are made in Texas. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 83 

The "Willacy idea," conceived and exploited in the interest of 
the liquor traffic, is passing and statesmen who do not want 
to pass with it would better not allow these manipulators for 
the liquor traffic to tie them on to the tail of Mr. Willacy's 
low descending kite. God reigns and the right will prevail; 
the saloon is doomed. Statesmen who do not want to share 
its downfall would better sever the bonds that connect with it. 



APPENDIX II. 



LIQUOR LICENSE A CRIME. 

(By H. A. Ivy, Sherman, Texas, 1907.) 

The "paramount issue" in Texas for the next few years is, 
"What shall we do with the liquor saloon?" Many methods have 
been proposed, but happily the discussion at this time has been 
narrowed down in Texas to two — prohibition and high license 
regulation. On these the people are rapidly aligning for the 
battle royal which is to decide the fate of the bar-room in Texas. 

It is the purpose here to prove that the high license, advo- 
cated by the liquorite-s today, is not even a suspicion of a remedy 
for the eviJs inflicted upon society by the liquor traffic, and 
further that it is a crime for the State to license and thereby 
approve and protect this accursed traffic which is productive of 
evil and evil only among the people. 

First. High License is no remedy at all. The Dallas News 
recently published the following from McClure's Magazine, re- 
garding Chicago's high license experiment: 

"A year ago the license fee was raised in Chicago from $500 
to $1000. It was hoped that this would wipe out the criminal 
saloon. It did, of course, nothing of the sort. The poor miser- 
able dives in the workingman's ward, each snatching a starva- 
tion living from the lips of the dwellers of the dozen smoke- 
befouled frame tenements about it, staggered down — a few hun- 
dred of them — and died. The man with the side line of pros- 
titution and gambling naturally survived and had the benefit of 
the others failure. So much for the great legalized branch of 



84 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

the sale of dissipation in Chicago. The net results of that free 
and undisciplined struggle have been two — the thorough satura- 
tion of Chicago, especially of the tenement districts — with alco- 
holic liquor; and a high and successful premium on the criminal 
saloon." 

The Chicago Tribune, after nine months of the thousand-dol- 
lar license, says: 

"Out of the total of 7,350 saloons in Chicago only 122 have 
failed to secure a new permit at the higher figure. Neither 
the increase in the license fee nor the new law relating to the 
proportion of saloons to the population has accomplished that 
weeding out of conditions which many of the friends of restric- 
tion had looked for. It is sufficient comment to know that the 
increased revenues are to be used largely for the support of the 
1100 new policemen required for the better protection of per- 
son and property, the danger to which are in a great degree 
due to the influences which radiate from the saloon as a center." 

The State's attorney, addressing a meeting in Chicago, Dec. 
9, 1907, said: 

"We thought that the thousand dollar license would help 
settle the question of the disreputable saloon. We have prose- 
cuted some 400 or 500 of this class of ($1000-license) saloons, 
but the best we can do is to get a $200 fine. The revocation of 
the license means that the bartender or the cousin of the pro- 
prietor gets a new one." 

Thus, the high-license saloon has proved to be just as much 
of a law-breaker as the low-license saloon, and high-license liquor 
makes a man beat his wife or shoot his neighbor as quickly as 
low-license liquor does. At this writing all Chicago is stirred 
by an effort to make the high-license saloons obey the law re- 
quiring Sunday closing. Only a few weeks since, one of these 
thousand dollar license saloons, which some folks appear to 
think are bound to be "law-abiding, decent and good," because 
of their high-license, was visited by two brothers, Michael Casey 
and John Casey. These two brothers are said to have been 
the best of friends and another brother declared they were 
never known to quarrel till they visited the "law-abiding" (?) 
high-license saloon on Sunday, when the law required it to be 
closed. They imbibed freely of the "wholesome pure liquor" 
dispensed by this law-abiding (?) high-license saloon on Sunday 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 85 

night, in violation of the law, fell out over some trivial matter 
and Mike slashed his brother John's throat with a razor, killing 
him instantly. 

This is a real occurrence and a faithful illustration of the 
high-license method of mitigating (?) the effects of the liquor 
saloon upon society. Any amount of such evidence could be 
produced, but it is not necessary to convince the unbiased per- 
son, who really wants society protected from the ravages of the 
liquor traffic, that high license is not even a suspicion of a 
remedy, but on the contrary has always and everywhere proved 
to be of advantage to the liquor seller and the liquor-maker. 
Hence they and their silent partners, the saloon free-lunch 
patrons, vagrants, gamblers, prostitutes, corrupt politicians and 
other beneficiaries of the bar room, are lining up in Texas in 
favor of the "High License and Drastic Regulation,'' which 
will not regulate any further than the traffic feels compelled 
to respect the rising tide of prohibition sentiment which threat- 
ens to annihilate it. 

Second. High License Is a Crime. Webster defines a crime 
as "an aggravated offense against morality or the public wel- 
fare." Every right-thinking person will agree that horse-steal- 
ing and highway robbery fall within this definition. Hence, 
every one will admit without argument that for the State to 
license and thereby approve and protect horse stealing and high- 
way robbery would be a crime. If, then, it can be shown that 
the licensed liquor seller does more harm to society than a 
licensed horse-stealer or licensed highwayman would do, it 
follows that the State commits a crime upon its people when it 
licenses a liquor seller. 

What injury, then, does the liquor traffic inflict upon society? 
Hear the testimony of just a few unimpeachable witnesses: 

William E. Gladstone, England's "Grand Old Man," the ablest 
statesman perhaps of modern times, said in a notable speech in 
parliament: "The liquor traffic has wrought more harm than 
the three great historic scourges— war, famine and pestilence — 
combined." 

Governor Hoch of Kansas, says: "Not a single good thing 
can be said of the saloon. It is everywhere and always an 
enemy of the peace; it is a promoter of strife; it is a fruitful 
source of crime; it is the devil's best recruiting camp; it im- 



86 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

poses more burdens of taxation upon the people than any other 
agency in existence; no human interest is sacred to it; it vol- 
untarily obeys no law." 

The United States Supreme Court declares: "The statistics 
of every State show a greater amount of crime and misery at- 
tributable to saloons than any other source." 

Theodore Roosevelt, when president of the New York Board 
of Police, said: "The liquor business tends to produce crimi- 
nality in the population at large, and law breaking among the 
saloon keepers themselves. Debauches not only the body social 
but the body political as well." 

The Current Issue of Austin, Texas, edited by a prominent 
defender of the liquor trade, in its issue of July 1902, said: 
"As a social influence the saloon has become an agency for 
evil which it is not easy to exaggerate. It is the magnet which 
collects the vicious and gives them the power of solidarity. 
The saloon fosters gambling and has become the partner of 
prostitution." 

The Supreme Court of Kansas, says: "Probably no greater 
source of crime and sorrow has ever existed than social drink- 
ing saloons. Social drinking is the evil of evils. It has probably 
caused more drunkenness and has made more drunkards than all 
other causes combined and drunkenness is a pernicious source 
of all kinds of crime and sorrow. It is a Pandora's box send- 
ing forth innumerable ills and woes, shame and disgrace, indi- 
gence, poverty and want; social happiness destroyed; domestic 
broils and bickerings engendered; homes made desolate; families 
scattered; heart-rending partings; sin, crime and untold sor- 
rows, not even hope left, but everything lost; an everlasting 
farewell to all true happiness and to ail the nobler aspirations 
rightfully belonging to every true and virtuous human being." 

The best authorities attribute three-fourths of the crime 
and two-thirds of the pauperism and a large proportion of the 
insanity of the present day to alcoholic intemperance fostered 
by the saloon. 

We send men to the penitentiary for high-way robbery in 
Texas and the legislator who would propose to license the high- 
way robber would call down upon his head the maledictions 
of every respectable person in the State. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 87 

Yet fathers and mothers of Texas would rather have the high- 
wayman meet their boy in the road and take his money, giving 
him nothing in return but a scare, than to have a liquor seller 
take his money, even in a high-license saloon, and give him 
liquor for it. 

Do not these considerations prove that the liquor saloon 
under a high license or a low-license is an "aggravated offense 
against morality and the public welfare?" If so, according to 
Webster, it is a crime. If I cause another person to commit a 
crime, I commit the crime as certainly as my agent does. When 
Texas issues a permit to a saloon-keeper to commit the "aggra- 
vated offenses" against the public welfare enumerated in the 
foregoing testimony, Texas commits a crime, whether she gets 
a high price or low price for the permit. For the State to 
license the crime-breeding, vagrancy-prompting man-debauching 
government-corrupting liquor saloon for any sort of a fee is a 
crime. 

Then it folio ws^ "as the night the day," that citizens who by 
their votes cause the State to commit this crime, become parties 
to the crime, since they are responsible parts of the State gov- 
ernment and consent thereto. If the saloon keeper deserves to 
be ostracized and denied membership in fraternal orders and in 
the churches, then the citizens who vote for license and thereby 
make the saloon keepers their agents to debauch the manhood, 
corrupt the government and promote crime, pauperism, insan- 
ity, woe and misery, are equally guilty with their agents, the 
saloon keepers, and deserve the same ostracism accorded them. 
And the day is in sight when churches and lodges to main- 
tain their standing for consistency, will have to take the saloon 
keepers in or turn the saloon voters out. 

Civil government was established and is maintained in Texas 
to protect life, liberty and property, and to conserve the public 
peace and public morals. The modern liquor saloon is signally 
destructive of every single one of these ends of the government. 
As Judge Samuel R. Artman well says: "The business kills 
many, makes widows and orphans, fills almshouses, jails, peni- 
tentiaries, orphanages and insane asylums. It frenzies the 
brain and directs the murderer's hand to plunge the fatal knife 
and discharge the deadly weapon." 



88 RUM ON THft RUN IN TEXAS 

I defy any man to point to a provision in the Constitution of 
Texas that authorizes the licensing of such an engine of evil. 
And in the absence of express constitutional mandate, the Leg- 
islature in enacting the law authorizing the sale of permits to 
agencies so defeasive of the very ends of the government ex- 
ceeded its authority and the act is therefore void, because "con- 
trary to public policy." The U. S. Supreme Court said: (Calder 
vs. Bull, 3 Dallas, 386.) "There are acts which the Federal 
or State Legislature can not do without exceeding their author- 
ity. " Again: (Stone vs. Miss., 101 U. S., 814): "No Legislature 
can bargain away the health or the morals of the people." The 
sale of a saloon license for revenue is such a bargain. Hence 
the act authorizing it is void, and every saloon in Texas exists 
without just warrant of law. Again the U. S. Supreme Court 
says: (Crowley vs. Christenson, 137 U. S.) "The statistics of 
every State show a greater amount of crime and misery attribu- 
table to the use of ardent spirits obtained at the retail liquor 
saloons than any other source. " I am convinced that the highest 
courts in the land knew what they were saying, and on this 
statement I declare that the Texas Legislature never had the 
rightful power to authorize the licensing in this State of "the 
greatest existing source of crime and misery," which, according 
to this court, is the liquor saloon. 

I do not expect all the lawyers of the present generation to 
agree with me in this, but those of the next will. However, 1 
am not wholly without creditable company even now. Two dis- 
tinguished Indiana jurists recently decided that the license 
statute of that State was contrary to public policy and therefore 
void. 

Mr. Citizen, what are you going to do about it? True, you 
may not be able to stop the State from licensing saloons by 
voting against license, but YOU WILL STOP YOUR PART OF 
IT. If you can not stop the commission of this crime by your 
government, you can stop being responsible for it, by voting 
against license. Then if the State continues to commit this 
crime it will not be your crime. Every man, Christian or not, 
who would be written down with Ben Adem, "as one who loves 
his fellow man," is in conscience bound to refuse his authority 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 89 

for this arch destroyer of human kind to continue to prey upon 
his fellow men. 

The highest authority of the Methodist Church has declared 
that "the liquor traffic can not be licensed without sin," and 
every praying Baptist, Presbyterian, Disciple, etc., in his heart 
says p-men to the Methodist declaration. Every Christian who 
votes to license this arch enemy of all good, commits sin, 
whether he thinks so or not. Under inspiration from heaven, 
Paul said: "It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine 
nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth or is made weak." 
Christians who by their votes cause saloons to be licensed in 
Texas place occasion for stumbling in the pathway of thousands, 
violate this law of heaven, and commit sin. There is no escaping 
this logic. 

Hence every church of Christ in Texas, whose mission is to 
tight sin and promote righteousness in the earth, is bound to 
array itself in this fight against the sin of licensing the sin- 
breeding liquor saloon, and deserved disgrace in the eyes of 
his fellow soldiers of the cross aw^aits every professed Christian 
who deserts to the enemy or attempts to hide in the brush 
of "neutrality," in this battle royal to dethrone King Alcohol 
in all Texas. 

Then what is the duty of the hour? Manifestly that the hosts 
of civic righteousness in Texas shall rise en masse and demand 
that the State Government, of which they are responsible parts, 
shall stop committing crime by licensing the crime-breeding 
trade. Speaking for the local optionists of the State, I 
register that demand here and now, and invite every friend of 
good government in Texas to join us in the effort to wipe off 
the statute books of the State the law that permits the crime 
of licensing the crime-breeding liquor traffic. God reigns and the 
right will prevail. The saloon is doomed in Texas. 

The foregoing was mailed out with invitations to the initial 
Conference that inaugurated the present State-wide prohibition 
campaign with the. following note appended: 

Brother Pastor: — This tract is designed as a kind of "John the 
Baptist," to make "straight the path" of State-wide prohibition. 
Will you not help the cause along by. getting some loyal pro in 
your congregation to send for a thousand and distribute them? 



90 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



APPENDIX III. 

(By H. A. Ivy.) 
CONSERVING TEXAS RESOURCES. 

Dedicated to the Texas Commercial Secretaries, in the hope 
that they may be induced to co-operate in saving Texas' most 
valuable asset — her present-day boyhood and future manhood — ■ 
from the blight of the liquor saloon and its allied iniquities. 

A great deal is being said these days about "conserving our 
resources." The chief asset of this commonwealth is its man- 
hood. Men can be made from nothing but boys. Hence it is the 
supreme duty of the State to protect her boys from influences 
that will prevent them from growing into the best men possible. 
To do this, Texas must abolish the vice-incubating liquor saloons, 
which can not continue to run without turning thousands of 
Texas boys into vagrants, gamblers and criminals every year. 
Get the lesson from this illustration. 




SALOONIST— Where am I to get my new customers to take the place of these old 
drunkards who are dying off so fast? 

DISTILLER— From boys like those on the school yard. Create appetite in the boys, 
man. Pennies invested now in treats to boys will return to you as dollars when they 
become drinking men. 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 91 



STATE PROHIBITION WILL SAVE TO TEXAS: 

1. At least TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY now 
worse than wasted for drink. 

PROOF — It is estimated on good authority that the average 
saloon in Texas takes from the people not less than $10,000, 
while the saloon keeper gives to the people $750 ($375 to the 
State, $187.50 to the county, $187.50 to the city) a year for li- 
cense, leaving the people $9,250 out of pocket each year on each 
saloon, and Texas has nearly 4000 saloons. I maintain that 
it would pay the people to quit licensing and supporting saloons 
that cost the people $9,250 a year each more than they pay the 
people, and I expect every man in Texas who is not either drunk 
or whisky crazy, or sharing in the profits of the liquor business, 
to agree with me. 

2. It will save Texas many millions of dollars now needless- 
ly expended in prosecuting rum-made criminals and in caring 
for rum-made paupers and lunatics and other dependents of the 
State, more than half of which are attributable to drink. 

Proof— U. S. Supreme Court (137 U. S., 86): "The statistics 
of every State show a greater amount of crime and misery at- 
tributable to the use of ardent spirits obtained at these retail 
liquor saloons than to any other source." 

Supreme Court of Indiana (6 Ind., 542) : "That it (drunken- 
ness fostered by the dram shop) produces four-fifths to nine- 
tenths of the crime committed is the united testimony of those 
judges, prison keepers, sheriffs aixd others engaged in the ad- 
ministration of the criminal law." 

Dr. P. E. Daniel, editor Texas Medical Journal: "High medi- 
cal authorities attribute 30 to 70 per cent of insanity to alcohol." 

3. It will save thousands of Texas boys from a fate worse 
than death, who will be started on the road to ruin by the saloon, 
with its gambling adjunct and scarlet annex, should it remain, 
guish caused by the boys 7 downfall. 



92 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

PROOF — It is estimated that not less than one hundred thou- 
sand in America go down to drunkards' graves every year. The 
estimate is certainly not excessive, and Texas' share can not be 
less than one thousand. If the saloons remain, these drunkards' 
places must be filled by turning Texas boys into drunkards. The 
Texas regiment of the saloon-enlisted army of drunkards and 
vagrants must be recruited from Texas homes. Let only those 
who have boys to offer vote for the saloon. 

4. It will save Texas the unimpaired productive power of 
many thousands of men whose earning capacity will be partially 
or totally destroyed by habits of dissipation cultivated by the sa- 
loons, and will save their families and the State the burden of 
supporting the non-productive drink slaves. 

PROOF is not needed; everybody knows that is true. 

5. It will save millions of Texas women and children from 
being robbed of their living by their natural supporters, who 
will become drink slaves and spend their families' bread money 
for drink in the saloons if they remain. 

PROOF — To offer to prove this would be to insult the intelli- 
gence of the reader. 

6. It would save every legitimate business in Texas from the 
unequal competition of the saloons for the wage-earners' cash 
patronage. If the millions now worse than wasted for drink were 
not thus spent, the bulk of it would certainly find its way fnto 
the tills of the legitimate merchants, in providing better living 
for the inmates of Texas homes. 

PROOF is not needed; it is self-evident. 

7. It will save Texas homes, Texas schools and Texas 
churches from the demoralizing influence of the saloon and its 
allied iniquities, which present the most formidable obstacle to 
the work of these three institutions in inculcating virtue, dis- 
seminating intelligence and promoting a reign of righteousness 
in Texas. 

PROOF — The Current Issue, of Austin, Texas: "As a social 
influence the saloon has become an agency for evil which it is 
not easy to exaggerate. It is the magnet which collects the vi- 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 93 

cious of every class and gives them the power of solidarity. The 
saloon fosters gambling and has become the partner of prostitu- 
tion." 

Dr. Charles F. Aked, in Appleton's: "Where the saloon exists 
it damns ten souls for every one that all the churches save." 

S. It will save civil government in Texas from the most cor- 
rupting agency known to modern politics. Clean government is 
impossible where the saloon exists. 

PROOF — Editor Texas Liquor Dealer (in private interview, 
1902): "We propose to send a powerful lobby to the Legislature 
next winter. I believe that the funds of this pool by next winter 
will be sufficient to buy up any Democratic Legislature that ever 
met in Texas. We propose to fix the newspapers and politicians. 
We intend to buy up the nigger vote. By paying a good price, 
say five dollars a vote, and working chiefly in the black counties, 
we can carry any proposition in the State, I don't care what it 
may be." 

Henry Watterson said: "Every office from the President down 
is handed out over the saloon counter." "Mars Henrv" knows 
about "licker" and is a past master in politics. 

Mr. Voter: Since Texas will gain all this and much more 
should State-wide prohibition prevail, and since the saloon will 
lose all this and more, it is up to you to decide whether you are 
for Texas or for the saloon. May heaven guide your decision. 

A new era of prosperity will dawn in Texas when State pro« 
hibition causes the millions now invested in making and selling 
liquor to be reinvested in factories and other enterprises that 
will employ five times the men the liquor traffic employs, and 
causes the thousands now dispensing liquid poison to devote 
their energies to things that build up rather than drag down 
their fellow men. 



94 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 



APPENDIX IV. 

A RELIC OF THE 1908 SUBMISSION CAMPAIGN. 
Vote for Submission, the Sole Issue, and "Let the People Rule." 

That is let the people say at the ballot box in 1909 whether 
the saloon shall go. 

The Texas Local Option Association was organized some five 
years ago to "Help Complete the Overthrow of the Liquor Traffic 
in Texas." It is still working at the task, trying just now to 
make the whole State the locus. H. A. Ivy has been secretary 
from the beginning. About six months ago, Texas antis, here- 
tofore bitter foes of local option, woke up and learned from the 
morning papers that Adolphus Busch, the millionaire brewer, 
had announced for local option because State prohibition in 
Oklahoma had cost him a million dollars, and presto, the erst- 
while enemies of local option in Texas became its champions 
Had not Lord Brewer Busch taken snuff, and must they not 
sneezer So they are sowing down the State with deceptive 
(liquor) "local option" literature, to fool real local optionists into 
voting with them for liquor. Read the following eye-opener: 

A Shortest Catechism on Submission and People Rule. 
By H. A. Ivy, Secretary, Texas Local Option Association. 

CHAPTER I. 

1. Ques. Will the Democrats vote in their primary, July 25, 
on State prohibition? 

Ans. No, they will not. 

2. Ques. Then, what is it concerning the saloon they will 
vote on? 

Ans. Simply for or against submission — that is for or against 
letting the people say through the ballot box next year whether 
the saloons in Texas shall stay or go. 

3. Ques. What will be the effect of a vote against sub- 
mission? 

Ans. It will be in effect to say to the people: "You shall 
not tell the Legislature what you want done with the liquor 
saloons." 



RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 95 

4. Ques. Will a real Democrat — a man who bows to the 
sovereignty of the people — cast such a ballot? 

Ans. Well, now Mr. Reader, you answer that question. 

CHAPTER II. 

1. Ques. Should submission win, will the Democracy be 
committed to State-wide prohibition? 

Ans. Certainly not, because State-wide prohibition will not be 
voted on, and the party can not possibly be committed on a 
question it does net vote on. 

2. Ques. If a majority in the primary vote against submis- 
sion, will that commit the Democracy against the doctrine of 
submission? 

Ans. It certainly will, and put the party squarely before the 
world as opposed to allowing the people to settle at the ballot 
box a great question affecting the public welfare — against the 
doctrine of people rule, the very foundation of Democracy. 

3. Ques. Will real Democrats vote to thus put the party 
on record in direct opposition to its cardinal tenet? 

Ans. No, I think not, but thousands who are not Democrats 
are threatening to come into this primary and vote against sub- 
mission so as to force the Democratic party to give an un-Demo- 
cratic expression on this question. This is a natural thing for 
the enemies of the Democratic party to do. 

4. Ques. Will real Democrats stand by and permit inter- 
loping enemies of the party to sneak in and commit the party 
against its vital principles? 

Ans. That remains to be seen, Mr. Democrat. Will you do 
your part to prevent such a calamity to the party? 

CHAPTER III. 

1. Ques. But what is that on the ticket about "the system 
of local option?" 

Ans. Oh! that is just a little bait thrown out by the liquor- 
ites to catch local option suckers, who they seem to think are too 
stupid to see the catch in it. 

2. Ques. Will a man who scratches the liquorites' local op- 
i sucker bait off the ticket be voting against local option? 



96 RUM ON THE RUN IN TEXAS 

Ans. No, he will simply be refusing to vote with the liquor- 
ites for liquor. 

3. Ques. Is there any necessity to vote the Legislature in- 
structions "For the system of local option?" 

Ans. No, for the "system of local option" was voted into 
the Constitution in 1876, is there today, and will stay there with- 
out action on part of the Legislature or a vote by the Democ- 
racy. Might as well ask the party to vote the Legislature in- 
structions to create the office of Governor, or to do anything 
else provided for by the Constitution of 1876. 

4. Ques. Will you, Mr. Reader, be caught by the liquorites' 
local option sucker bait? 

Ans. If you are a Democrat, you ought to answer at the bal- 
lot box July 25, with a vote "For Submission," and in favor of 
W. J. Bryan's slogan, "Let the People Rule." 

THE SUBMISSION TICKET. 

"For the submission by the Thirty-first Legislature of the 
■State of Texas of a constitutional amendment to the people of 
the State of Texas for their adoption or rejection, prohibiting 
within the State of Texas the manufacture, sale, gift, exchange 
and intra State shipment of spirituous, vinous and malt liquors 
and medicated bitters, capable of producing intoxication, except 
for medicinal and sacramental purposes." 

"Against the Submission by the Thirty-first Legislature of 
the State of Texas of a constitutional amendment to the peo- 
ple of the State of Texas for their adoption or rejection, pro- 
hibiting within the State of Texas the manufacture, sale, gift, 
exchange and intra State shipment of spirituous, vinous and malt 
liquors and medicated Ditters, capable of producing intoxication, 
except for medicinal and sacramental purposes." 

"For the system of Local Option, and appropriate enactment 
for the perfection of our laws so as to prevent the barter, sale or 
exchange of intoxicating beverages or liquors, in local option dis- 
tricts." 

"Against the System of Local Option, and appropriate enact- 
ment for the perfectiou of our laws so as to prevent the barter, 
sale or exchange of intoxicating beverages or liquors in local op- 
tion districts." 

SCRATCH EVERYTHING EXCEPT "FOR SUBMISSION." 

STERLING P. STRONG, Chairman. 

The liquorites' local option subterfuge on this ticket added to 
the distractions over the Bailey fight, materially reduced the sub- 
mission majority. It is probable that submission would carry by 
100,000 in the State today. 




^ow 



